>> good morning and welcome to the rescheduled rules committee for today, valentine's day, february 14th, 2022. i am the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair. >> --, can we hold for a moment. i am hearing from your office that we may have an online issue with san francisco government t.v. not working. if you don't mind pausing momentarily while we check on that. >> take your time. >> i believe the issue is on san

francisco government t.v., the online version. whoever is checking on that.

chair peskin, a quick update. it looks like the live streaming on san francisco government t.v., we are getting network errors and they are checking on that right now. >> okay. >> everything is working, it is just not streaming on our website. they are addressing the issue right now. we will give you an update momentarily. >> okay.

>> chair peskin, --

>> supervisor peskin: february 14th, 2020. due to technical difficulties, we are starting now. i'm joined by supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. and your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the minutes will reflect the members of this meeting participated in this meeting remotely. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public comment in the following ways. either channel 76, 28, 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes to speak unless otherwise stated. or call (415) 655-0001.

the meeting id is 24950524358 then press pound and pound again. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down your television or radio. or you may submit public comment to myself, victoryoung@sfgov.org. written comments may be sent to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlet place. and just a word for the streamers at sfgovtv.org. for today's session, you will

be redirected to a youtube website for streaming services for this meeting. that concludes my initial announcements chrment thank you, mr. young. and we are joined by supervisor mar for the first item. mr. clerk, can you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number one is a motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on june 7th, 2022, an ordinance to amend the police code to require employers to provide public health emergency leave during a public health emergency. if you haven't already done so, dial star three to line up to speak for public comment. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. and. >> supervisor mar: supervisor mar did we hear the

controller's statement last week? >> supervisor mar: i don't believe so. >> chairman: okay. why don't we start with the controller's statement as we do with all the items in front of us. ms. stevenson, good morning. >> good morning supervisors. peg stevenson from the controller's office. i submitted a letter which is in your file just providing likely basic staffing costs that would come with this measure. in our lingo this is a moderate cost to government and then reminding people that the eventual development would depend on where yourself and approve a budget through your normal processes and future mayors and boards of supervisors to a particular

cost. so that is typically how we advise these measures and that's what our letter reflects. happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty straight forward in that way. >> chairman: are there any questions for the controller's office? seeing none. supervisor mar, i believe you have some additional amendments this morning that you've circulated to the members of this committee. the floor is yours. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, supervisor peskin, and supervisor mandelman. also i want to thank supervisor chan for your co-sponsorship and your support. so i do have a second addition to the amendment this morning, but i did also want to state the first set of amendments introduced last week these

additional amendments were created through our continuing engagement with labor and employer groups towards the goal of finding the right balance of protecting and supporting workers during the current and future health emergencies while also preventing unreasonable burden on our employers. i want to thank council and sf building and construction trades. the chamber of commerce and the golden gate restaurant association in advance for their constructive engagement on this with this important measure. to briefly summarize the four amendments that were circulated to you and that i'm hoping the committee would adopt today. the first one is on page five, line 17 to 21. and for purposes of allocating the hours available to part-time workers, employers will now look back at the hours over the prior six months

rather than the prior three months with the look-back provisions in a statewide supplemental lead. we added language to the office of labor enforcement standards to count other hypothetical forms of supplemental leads that employers may have offered for the offsetters and, thirdly, on page nine, lines 18 to 22, we specified that employers can request a doctor's note using public health emergency for air quality to confirm their status as a member of a vulnerable population and then fourth and lastly on page 17, line 25, we added the ability to amend public health emergency leave and scope of coverage for air quality emergencies because this is the new sort of policy

provision in this proposal. again, thanks again, colleagues and i request that you adopt the amendments that i've shared with you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar, and thank you for sharing those on friday so we can read them over the weekend. i am fine with them. why don't we if we don't have comments from committee members open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number one? >> clerk: yes. if you have not already done so, please dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have 14 callers on the line with four on the line to speak. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. i'm waiting for a different agenda item. so i'll go back in the queue. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker.

>> caller: can you hear me? >> chairman: mr. pillpell, please proceed. >> caller: i'm sorry, i didn't know that i raised my hand. i'm trying to juggle the technology here. we don't seem to have captions on the youtube feed which is the redirect from from the channel one live item and i guess i'm -- i didn't have anything substantiative on item one. but i'm guessing these will trigger continue this to a special rules committee meeting or continue this to the 28th. i'm trying to juggle all the things going on this morning. it's very complicated. thanks. >> chairman: next speaker. >> hi, good morning,

supervisors. this is lori camas calling from the golden gate restaurant association. i wanted to call and thank supervisor mar and his staff for the super helpful that have resulted in these amendments and so we appreciate that very much. we do want to say that we still have the side and would suggest if possible we continue to relook at that sizing. [please stand by]

>> it is expensive to clean the docs and maintain the high standards. i appreciate this one amendment. i also appreciate anything that is done to help our nurses, our doctors, those on the front lines. we know a lot of them have

reached saturation point. totally stressed out. so whatever we can do to lessen their stress, we appreciate it and we thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public to make public comment on item number 1. >> we are doing one last final check. that was the last caller on this matter. >> okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, given that the 21st is president's day and a holiday, i have asked the clerk's office to convene a special meeting of this committee the following day, th. i believe it is at 10:00 am.

is that correct,, mr. young? >> yes. that is the correct request. may i ask if we can continue the matter to the call of the chair with the intent to schedule while i work out the logistics with all the other bodies? >> absolutely. i just want to be able to let the public know that the next meeting is almost certainly going to be on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. as a technical matter, we will continue after we make amendments this item to the call of the chair. please, as it relates to this and other measures on this agenda, know that it will be heard almost certainly on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. with that, i would like to make a motion to adopt supervisor mar's aforementioned and discussed amendment. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion...

[ roll call ] >> the motion passes without objection. >> then i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to the call of the chair, noting that it will likely, almost certainly be heard on february 22nd at 10:00 am. on that motion, a vehicle, please... [ roll call ] -- on that motion a roll call, please this. [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> i will note, colleagues and members of the public, that any item that we take action on on february 22nd can be forwarded to the board in the normal

course of business, not as a committee report to be heard on march 1st which is the first day -- last day for the board of supervisors to put initiative ordinances on the ballot. i wanted to announce that so everyone is aware. please read item two through five together. >> yes, item two is a motion submitted to the voters of an election to be held on june 7th, 2022 amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to replace a hearing for the department of public works with a requirement that the controller and administrator regularly monitor the rates and appear before the refuse rate board to recommend adjustments. item three is motion submitted to the voters to be held on june 7th, 2022 and amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the

refuse rate setting process should replace hearings before the department of public works with a requirement that the controller, as refuse rate administrator, regularly monitor the rates and appear for the refuse rate board to recommend rate adjustments. item four is a hearing to propose an ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the rate setting process. item five is a hearing to consider the proposed ordinance i proposed by voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the refuse rate setting process. >> thank you, mr. young. thank you, colleagues. when i say thank you, colleagues, i am referring not only to supervisor chan and

mandelman on this panel, but every member of the board of supervisors and the mayor as it relates to this somewhat monumental undertaking. candidly this is the culmination of a total choice past couple of years and i'm not talking about the pandemic. in many ways this measure, and actually the measure that we are closing today's meeting with, it aims to bookend a year's long continuing to unravel corruption prices in the city and county of san francisco. that corruption crisis has been, i think we all know, incredibly costly. as it relates to recology, that cost has been borne by the ratepayers and residents and businesses of san francisco to the tune of at least $94.5 million, which, thankfully, has been refunded.

you might ask why we are considering foreign measures. hopefully this entire episode will end with one measure being on the ballot. the measures before us revisit the waste management ordinance that we commonly referred to as the 1932 ordinance which has been largely unchanged in our laws for almost 100 years, 90 years to be exact. it was amended a couple of times in the fifties and sixties. it can only be amended or rescinded at the ballot. there has been a couple of unsuccessful attempts to revoke the 1932 ordinance on the balance -- on the ballot with proposition a in 2012. all of these measures amend the long-held monopoly on waste management in san francisco and create a more dynamic regulatory

oversight relationship between the city and our company. let me explain a little bit about why there are foreign measures and talk a little bit about the process that god is here. over a year ago, as the revelations of overcharging and the corruption in and around the ratemaking process as related to mohammed new roux, under the 1932 ordinance, the director of public works ultimately issues some orders. at that time, together with mayor breed, we convened a working group. you will hear a little bit more about that from the controller's office. it spent the last year looking at the current regulatory scheme

and explored other options. ultimately, we landed on a well thought out and reasonable ordinance that is item 220052 in this packet, which we brought to recology on december 9th. we gave them an advanced copy of an early draft to discuss with them the working group which had a broad group of stakeholders ranging from the building owners and managers' association to representatives of tenant's interest, to the apartment association. they did not, by design, include recology. but as that group and the city's internal group run by the controller's office came to a

consensus, we brought the draft ordinance to recology. recology expressed a number of concerns and we committed to continue conversations with recology. unfortunately, and i have never actually seen this by a corporation or anybody that i have negotiated with in the almost 20 years that i have been a member on this board of supervisors, rather than negotiate in good faith, recology, 11 days later decided to collect signatures for their own ordinance, which would not allow any future amendment by the city by and through the board of supervisors and the mayor. and that resulted in my coming forward with the next item that

has already been called, file number 22053 which would put their franchise out to bid upon passage by the voters, and also would lead to an introduction as allowed by the charter to -- two identical measures directly to the ballot. thank you two supervisors chan and mandelman for signing on to those, along with supervisors ronen and walton. hopefully on the first day of march we would draw our signatures from those two instruments, which are the hearings that are items four and five on today's calendar, but what i would like to do is go over both items. i have a number of amendments to the full board. i wish it weren't this way, but based on recology's behaviour in

december and january, i do not trust them. i would like to maintain leverage until the end. with that, unless there are any introductory remarks from colleagues, i really would like to thank and acknowledge the deputy city attorney who has done an extraordinary job of defining what i was thinking and working with for the task force. i want to thank and acknowledge been rosenfield and his team and others in the controller's office for doing all of the hard work and analysis to get us here. and i would like to thank the mayor's office and the chief of staff for their hands-on participation and help all along the way, and if there are no comments from committee members, i like to turn it over to natasha from the controller's

office who can run us through all of the high points of the legislation and then, colleagues, i will speak to a number of pretty straightforward amendments. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. good morning. my name is natasha. i am in the controller's office. there is an echo. maybe supervisor peskin, go on mute. that would be helpful. i will assume it is okay to share my screen. i have a few slides to go through here. as the supervisor mentioned, earlier in 2021 the controller's office worked with supervisor peskin and the mayor's office to understand what are some of the key concerns particularly around residential rates.

these were our guiding questions around accountability and transparency. does the public truly understand how the process is managed? what is the quality of service? is a cost-effective, does it meet our stated environmental goals, our performance standards, and are the rates the customers are paying appropriate and fair for residential refuse service? these were the questions that we took a look at the existing system and how we might be able to make changes. some of our findings are the ratesetting timeframe may be too long to correctly estimate the cost. there is an ad hoc nature to this. every four to five years there is a rate sitting process. staff have to drop what they are doing and relearn and build expertise. the rate calculations themselves are very complicated. they are not transparent and there is an opportunity to improve the methodology to make sure that what rates are being paid actually match revenues and expenses.

also a lack of ongoing monitoring. there's low public confidence because we don't have independent audits. there is an ongoing moderating which are environmental and customer service goals and the rate board is not involved in the monitoring of the ratesetting process. as the supervisor mentioned, this measure does date back to 1932 which limits the city's ability to make changes to the system when issues are identified. the proposal that is before you today would establish the controller as the refuse rate administrator. a team in the controller's office would be responsible for administering the ratesetting process and proposing rates to the rate board. this group would work with subject matter experts in public works, in the department of environment to come up with those proposed rates for the rate board to take and review, listen to, and approved. that new group would also do ongoing financial and performance monitoring of the

residential refuse provider for right now in the annual balancing of expenses, revenue, performance monitoring which would actually happen. the rate board memberships and responsibilities would change so in order to ensure full transparency and any perceived conflict of interest, the controller would not be on the board anymore and we would add a ratepayer representative. the rate board would also proactively approved rate applications and also oversee ongoing financial and performance reporting. as part of that, the board would conduct an annual financial audit, independent financial audit with a contractor that they have selected. and the measure allows flexibility for the future. the measure does authorize the regulation of commercial rates and allows changes to the ordinance with a board super majority and mayoral approval.

that is the end of my presentation. >> thank you so much. thank you for your work along the way. seeing no other comments from committee members, thank you again, supervisors mandelman and chan for your constant support and help. i want to thank and acknowledge the day to day men and women who do the work at recology. i'm not talking about the corporate management that i have had a very unfortunate experience with over the last couple of months. i'm talking about the people who drive the tracks and collect our refuse and i want to say that they have been burdened by the corruption scandal. it is not of their making and they have continued to carry out

their duties, they're very difficult duties everyday with pride and care. i really want to acknowledge the employees, almost 1,000 of them from the teamsters. colleagues you are in receipt of a letter from the teamsters local 350 from john bouchard, today, this morning, in support of the efforts that we have been undertaking. i want to thank him for his help and support. at the end of the day, what this is about is the consumer. i hate to use the win win term, but this is a win for the consumers and a win for san francisco residents and it is also a win for commercial ratepayers as they have historically not been regulated under the 1932 ordinance and this ordinance does provide the

ability for the city to regulate commercial rates and residential rates. to put it simply, it is trash day in san francisco and it is time for us to take out the trash. i think that is what we are doing. as to -- sorry, that is low hanging fruit. as to the amendments, to both file 22 and 53, on page 3 of both measures, strike the word residential in front of refuse service because the principles set forth as a cost-effective service standard, they applied to both residential and commercial service on page 4, insert language clarifying the definition of refuse. it includes recyclables and compostable's and crop -- and trash but does not include waste materials.

as those terms are defined in chapter 19 of the environment code, which may be amended from time to time. these were not thoughts. this is a commonsense update. on page 5 of those measures, around line 10, insert the word, in accordance with the law and then at line 11, move the word daily and add at the end of that sentence, at a frequency in accordance with the law. this is reflecting reality relative to the amount of service that people need. at page 6 of those measures, and i will note for my colleagues, here is when the measure starts to deviate, just slightly, but in the interest of providing additional clarity to the rate board regarding what it may consider when determining an applicant's ability to minutes

might -- minimize disruptions in service, i want to show a certification that the applicant has appointed one or more employee representatives to a board that may suffice to make the showing. in file 52 page 6, lines 14 through 18, the section regarding constraints on the director of public health authority to issue permits that are already being adequately served and we are making similar cleanup amendments in the file ending in 53 at page 7, line two, inserting the language that if the director finds there is inadequate service, which specifies the director of public health is an entity charged with determining whether inadequate services exist, which would warrant modification or replication of the permit. on page 8 of both measures, inserting language that the refuse rate administrator, the controller, in the new scheme,

in the context proposing new rates, monitoring the financial operation and performance of refuse collectors, performing studies and add investigations and advising the rate board, may take into account, this is the new language, any applicable service standards in the environmental call is established by law. and page 9, file 52 and page 10 of file 53, recommend authorize with the refuse rate board as authorized to perform audits that are regulated with revenues and in subsection six, at audits and performance standards applied to the refuse correctors just collectors and refuse disposers. on page 12 of the file, ending in 52 and page 13 ending in 53, increasing the amendment threshold for the board of supervisors to amend section 290 of the health code from seven supervisors down to eight

supervisors. and both measures we are providing them to adopt legislation concerning permits that should not be interpreted to affect or change the authority that public health currently has with absence of legislation with regards to absence or renewal. colleagues, that concludes the amendments. if there are no questions or comments, let's odom items two through five. supervisor chan? >> thank you. i want to thank you for bringing me along on this journey to reform a critical service for the entire city, both for the resident and for the city itself. it is monumental work. i learned a lot through this

process, both strategically thinking about how to make this reform and get on the ballot is no small feat. i thank you for that. most importantly is the critical work that you have put in to truly make this a better process. and continue to maintain the quality of service. i think the question is really about the people who have been providing the city and county of san francisco this management service. we're not doubting the quality of it. is more about the transparency and accountability of ratesetting and how to be efficient and also catch errors in time. i appreciate all the work on this. i want to be on the record to thank you for your leadership but also thank everybody that has been putting their hard work, including the controller's office and many other stakeholders that you put together for the task force and putting their effort into this reform. thank you.

>> thank you, supervisor chan. i sincerely appreciate it. i have not actually asked the controller to make their statement on these items. my bad. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so now. >> we can speak to these. we have estimated that this would be a team of 2-4 people in the controller's office, with other costs associated with providing public hearings where we are estimating it is roughly 500,002 $1 million a year. >> miss stevenson, is that moderate? in your lexicon, what is that? how does that score? >> moderate is correct. >> okay. so with that, seeing no other members of the committee, let's

go to public comment on items to through five. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items 2-5 should call 4156550001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue waiting until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comment. we have 16 callers on the line with three in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> supervisors, you do understand this is a very complicated situation.

so the controller's office has been in the cockpit fast asleep all these years. and in transparency that you want to establish, what role do the workers play? the company is owned by the workers. is that input that would be given to you by the workers, be at the teamsters or other unions. that is question number 1 what role will we constituents or residents play. nobody gave you the permission to speak for us. for me, you are behind. this nonsense has been going on because you have all been looking the other way.

what role will the department of environment play the controller's office has been fast asleep at the cockpit when it comes to corruption. in fact,, if you are a whistleblower and go to the controller's office, they don't give a damn that position is they are there to save the city and therefore, they adhere to the norms of being a whistleblower, that will put them in some liability when it comes to helping the whistleblowers. >> your time has elapsed. next speaker, please.

>> hello, supervisors. i read an article about how the building that recology sold to amazon they bought with ratepayer money, therefore the ratepayer should be reimbursed, in that same vein, i'm wondering why recology -- it is all paid for by the ratepayers and they are the ones who are responsible for all the advice in the first place. i'm really confused on why they are allowed to keep doing these things. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning and thank you for your time and effort on this matter. i am from teamsters local 350. we represent 900 refuse workers in san francisco and we are in full support of the proposed

amendment. they would help protect our members, the ratepayers and the city of san francisco from further corruption. more oversight in the rate setting process is clearly needed and these changes provide that while creating a more transparent process for all involved. thank you for your time and effort again and have a good day. >> thank you for your help along the way. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me okay? >> please proceed. >> great. could i get a 32nd warning. good morning. on these issues, i haven't spoken to anyone at recology on this and i haven't been able to reach them in months. the issues with the former dpw director and a rate miscalculation that resulted in

a rebate to customers have been conflated here. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> supervisor peskin: -- continues to investigate whether there have been additional overcharges. -- when they manage to get all the information they need from recology, which has been slow to come, but recently, last

week, the controller said some encouraging words with regards to recology last week, so hopefully, the controller will be able to finish his work and issue his report. when it comes to final words on the department of environment. let me say concluesively that they have been involved with the drafting of the documents that are before you, and with

that, i would like to make a motion to file the last two items and continue two and three to our next meeting. and mr. young, are we now certain that that meeting will be on february 22 at 10:00 a.m.? >> clerk: i haven't checked logistics. i would still continue to request that you continue to the call with the caveat that we will most likely meet on february 22 at 10:00 a.m. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so it is a tripartheid motion to amend the files in 5-2 and 5-3 as previously discussed, to file items 4 and 5, and to continue the items 2 and 3 as amended to the call of the chair, noting that they will

most certainly be heard at the next meeting. roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> supervisor peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item number 6 is a hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted to supervisors entitled hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters for the june 7 rngs 2022 election, entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the office of the victim and witness rights,

and to establish a right to counsel for domestic violence victims in civil proceedings related to limiting the economic, familial, and other harms resulting from domestic violence, and a pilot program to provide civil counsel in such domestic violence related proceedings through legal services and pro bono attorneys. >> chair peskin: supervisor chan, do you want to make comments? there was a hearing submitted to the charter by four or more members of the board. the primary sponsor is supervisor stefani, and the cosponsors are mandelman, safai, and haney, and if there are no questions at this time, i will turn it over to staff for supervisor stefani. supervisor chan, you look like you want to say something although i don't see your name on the screen.

go ahead, please. >> supervisor chan: my apologies, i do have questions, but i think it would be good for mr. mullen to go ahead and do his presentation. my questions are just for clarification. >> chair peskin: okay. andy mullen, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, and supervisors mandelman and chan for having me here today. i have a short presentation, and then, i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. i want to start this presentation by talking about the need. the need is very acute. approximately 20,000 times per quarter, a san francisco resident is the victim of a crime according to police department data, and as high as that is, it's probably an

undercount. the estimate by social sciences is that 40% of crimes are reported to law enforcement, and only about 3,000 of the reported incidents result in an arrest, and charges are filed in about 1,000 cases. the victims of crime in san francisco are primary women and people of color. in 2020, people of color were victimed in 73% of aggravated assaults, 73% of battery cases, 83% of robberies, 63% of burglaries, 88% of homicides, and 66% of sexual assaults. in particular, the need of domestic violence victims was particularly acute during the covid-19 pandemic. during that period, we saw calls to crisis lines increase by almost 40%. calls to the cooperative restraining order clinic which provides some pro bono work for

people, increased by 66%, and the turn away percent for people seeking emergency shelter was 79%. there was also a 79% decrease in cases solved by injure trial for people seeking or charged with domestic abuse. services for victims are spread out across various city agencies and often require significant legwork on the part of victims in order to access. there are victim services programming currently located in the district attorney's office and the office of economic and workforce development, and the bulk of these services sort of sit at the back end of lengthy law enforcement processes, meaning that you typically need -- not always, but typically need an

incident, a police report, an arrest, particularly an incident before you can access any of these services. so the situation before you today aims to address some of those issues. it does two things. it creates the office of victim and witness service rights. i'll begin by briefly explaining the office of victim and witness services. it will create a victim-first model for services in san francisco because we don't really know what all of these victims of crime need yet. what this initiative will do is it will create an office outside of law enforcement to meet victims and witnesses where they are, at the front end of victimization. the mandates in this initiative

that this office will have to meet at the outset should it pass, is that they will be mandated to provide comprehensive services to victim and witnesses, including culturally competent and linguistically appropriate services, including translation services, including ensuring translation services are readily available. and there are two ways to meet that mandate. one, streamline and strengthen the existing offering of services, and they need to develop new services. and so on the first prong, consolidate and streamline existing services. one year after the appointment and passage of a director, the director shall submit to the board of supervisors all the services offered to witnesses and proposing a plan for how to consolidate and streamline

them, and that proposal will help form the office and help the board of supervisors determine what funding would be appropriate for this service. the other purpose is to mandate new services. they will survey all victim and witnesses and get quality and feedback on all the services provided and it will be used to generate a work plan. the reason this initiative came into effect was because we heard a woman was a witness to a pretty violent gun shooting. because she wasn't a victim, she was treated as a witness to a crime even though she felt that she was a victim.

the other prong and mandate from this office will be to house and help victims of domestic violence. domestic violence remains a problem in san francisco. victims are primarily women and people of color. despite being only 5% of san francisco's population, african americans are 29% of the victims of domestic violence in the city, and, of course, the vast majority of those cases were women. this office will house and hold a right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence

[indiscernible] cut, child support, marcy's law, alimony, applying for social service benefits, health care, employment, and housing. we estimate in the early years there will be about 500 to 800 clients, and services will cost the city for the civil counsel piece alone, between $1 million to $3 million, subject to funding by the mayor and board of supervisors. studies by the robin hood foundation indicates that that provides $2 million to $3 million back to the city, and this measure was crafts in

collaboration with a diverse group of providers, including the justice and diversity center, jewish family services, a.p.i. legal outreach, the brady campaign, the san francisco coalition against human trafficking, the american indian cultural district, and the national coalition for rights civil counsel, and that is the end of my prepared remarks, supervisors, and i'm happy to take any and all questions you may have. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. mullen. why don't we go to supervisor chan, and then, i've got some questions. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. mr. mullen, i think my question is just a point of clarification and trying to understand -- like, just help me -- you know, the details about the office, you know, establishing this office and the logistics around it.

and then, if you don't have answers, i totally understand because it looks like it would take an ordinance to consolidate some of the services. but my -- my first question is currently, i agree many different services exist. how would this affect the services that currently exist? >> we didn't want to turn out the lights in any office before we had turned on the lights on a new, hopefully better, home for many of these functions. so this initiative ordinance requires the creation of a

director, and it requires the director to come up with a service consolidation and streamlining plan a year after enactment. and should that be any impact to sharp, it would be on that plan, and it would be voted on by the board of supervisors. the real goal is to make sure sharp's services, should sharp move into these offices, we'll have plenty of chance to discuss that and any other services moving into this office. but it was very important not to close down sharp before something else could be reopened, so that was what governed this approach. >> supervisor chan: all right. and then, my follow up, i appreciate -- some of the language talked about it's not just translation services or, like, let's also make sure

there's hearing impaired and other challenges that face victims with disabilitied that we could address. and help me understand, too. i think you kind of talked a little bit about this, and i agree, because when it comes to victims, often time, as the system currently exists, you would have to file a report. you have to be already in the law enforcement system to already quote and quote be identified as a victim, but oftentimes, witnesses to a crime or some other circumstance, actually, those folks also need help. maybe not in the eye of the law, but could actually be deemed as victims. how do the victims get in touch with this office or how does the office provide victims who are not in the law enforcement system services? >> the goal -- thank you, supervisor chan.

that's an excellent question, and that gets to the heart of what we're trying to do here. it talks victims services, which is basically at the back of the services, a one-stop shop and make it available at the beginning. if you call them and say, i've been victimized, you could use them if you so chose, and they could help abate some of the things that you've experienced based on trauma or they could help you. so the idea that you now have a place that you can call without a case and tell them what happened, and they can give you sort of a buffet of options, but that's something, again, that has to be built out. i don't want to overpromise and say june 2, this thing flies

up, and every victim of violence will be helped. if they hear from victims about what they need, then, they can fill it out with what victims need acutely. >> supervisor chan: and i think the translation and victim services, i know that we're trying as a city to provide language services and most definitely victim services, but in my humble opinion, i think that my opinion, language access and cultural competency is significantly lacked. when it comes to victims experiencing any type of trauma, especially domestic trauma and what are actually happening in their -- and what is actually happening in their homes, cultural competency is a huge component to successfully

be able to help victims. so just want to say that as my thoughts, and in the event that it does get out and pass by the voters, i look forward to seeing the ordinance and learning more about it. >> thank you, supervisor chan, and i agree completely. >> chair peskin: i neglected, colleagues, to have the controller's office read the controller's statement. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so, please proceed. >> good morning, supervisors. peg stevens from the controller's performance group. you have a letter in your packet probably just reflecting basic start-up costs for the basic start-up activities that are outlined in the ordinance. so this would be a director for the office and some staffing

and operational support to carry out the service and needs, and our estimate for those costs are right around $1 million, which would be a director and staffing support for those activities. and then, as mr. milan alluded, the rest of the costs would come in the form of ordinances, proposals that come through your normal budgetary and fiscal processes. happy to answer any questions, but it's fairly straightforward that way. >> chair peskin: yes, miss stevens. it is in our packet, but just wanted you to say it so the public could hear it. so i guess these are more comments than questions, and i want to thank supervisor stefani and the other individuals who signed onto this and say that i think this

could be passed by this board probably unanimously well before june. i think if you introduce this at tomorrow's board meeting, it could probably be law by the end of march, and obviously, the charter allows this to go directly to the ballot, but insofar as the first phase of this is an exploratory phase, as we've done with many other offices, racial equity, cannabis, you name it, they were created by the board; and further, insofar as because this is a chart amendment, the ordinary -- charter amendment, being approved by the voters

only guarantees funding for one year. it just seems like this is good stuff, and we could actually have it be law several months before the june election. supervisor mar, one of the things that i asked him about his ordinance, why can't we just put this before the board, and he actually had a cogent response was that no, he had been advised by the city attorney that previous ballot measure occupied this field. it could only be done at the ballot, and at that point, i understood why it was before

us. so it just seems like we could do this under the dome, and the next couple of items with regard to surveillance, i hope, if everything works out, and cooler heads prevail, we will do it under the dome. but those ballot items haven't been called, so i won't speak to those for another moment or two. but those are my thoughts, which doesn't need to be on the ballot. >> did you want a response, supervisor peskin? or i don't need to -- i'm not trying to. >> chair peskin: yeah. >> the path -- you are not wrong on this issue and many others. the path that was chosen was just a parallel path to the right to counsel. when enshrining a right, we

have to go to the voters to ask them if that is a worthy right to enshrine. >> chair peskin: tenant right to counsel was not actually put on by the electeds, that was put on by the voters, so that was an exception to admittedly my own self-imposed rule, which is if you want to go out and get 9,000 ballot signatures, you can do whatever you want, but the folks who were elected to pass laws did not actually put that on the ballot, so there's a -- there's a difference there. >> there is, but i think that was probably a choice that seems like the board would have been ready and interested in passing that. >> chair peskin: i would tell you that i know, but i don't know because that was in my glorious seven-year hiatus, so

i don't know why that was put to the voters and not to the electeds. all right. supervisor mandelman, anything you want to add as a cosponsor? okay. you've got a lot of words this morning. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: yeah, i just want to say that i am thankful to supervisor stefani's leadership on this, and especially many others that concern victims of crime, that i did, too -- that i do, too, agree with chair peskin. many of the things that i'm working on, i thought better of it, and how can i better do the legislative process to look at it here. especially when it comments to charter amendments, i take it

seriously, and i agree with chair peskin. last week, when we had questions about supervisor mar's legislation, just double-check and triple check with the city attorney after the meeting, just to make sure that there are no paths with the existing legislative process, that it just goes through as a legislation we can pass, knowing that we will likely have to vote. in fact, i think this is a very worthwhile endeavor that we can take on right now before june. [please stand by]

>> my apologies. is this item eight? what item is this. >> item six.

>> item six. thank you. i will wait for a later item. thank you. >> are there any additional speakers for this item number 6? >> that was our only color for this item. >> okay, if there are no final comments, i will make a motion to file this hearing. on that motion, mr. young, a rule call, please. >> the motion to file... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> thank you, supervisors. happy valentine's day. >> likewise. can you read items seven and eight together, please? >> yes, item seven is a hearing

to consider the post initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the police department to acquire and use surveillance technology with respect to certain criminal events as defined and criminal activity that is concentrated in certain geographically distinct areas. item number 8 is the hearing to consider the proposed ordinance performed by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election, entitled ordinance amending the administered of code to adopt with minor changes as a voter approved measure the ordinance which currently requires the city departments acquiring surveillance technology or entering into agreements to receive information from noncity-owned surveillance technology and submit a board of supervisors approved surveillance technology

policy ordinance based on policy or policies developed by the committee on information technology. >> thank you, mr. young. why don't we start with the controller's statement for items seven and eight, which i believe have no financial impact, but miss stevenson? >> that is correct. just affirming your statement. no significant costs to the government. >> thank you, miss stevenson. i will give mr. power, from the mayor's office, as well as chief scott who is here, an opportunity to present, but before i do that, i want to set the stage and remind everybody how we got to where we are, and that really begins with a law that i authored a number of years ago in 2019.

thank you, supervisor mandelman, for your vote in support of that. the law was crafted in collaboration with the coalition of advocates who i want to acknowledge, ranging from the american civil liberties union, the electronic frontier foundation, secure justice, open privacy, council of arab and islamic relations, media justice, and the first amendment coalition, as well as dozens of other civil liberties, privacy and free-speech organizations. a total of 36 organizations submitted a letter last thursday reiterating their support of the 2019 surveillance oversight ordinance. and by way of background, it operated and new framework for public oversight of government use of surveillance technology. and by the way, it was not a san francisco first. i think we were the seventh municipality to pass this kind

of legislation. ours was unique and so far as it did, and was the first to ban facial recognition technology in surveillance -- in the use of surveillance technology. that was in the midst of the trump presidency. we really put forward a plan to provide digital safety and sanctuary in san francisco, and just because the political climate has improved under the current administration, that doesn't mean that the rest of the civil liberties have magically disappeared overnight or they will not reemerge in ways that everyone should find quite disturbing. in the past few years since we have passed that policy, dozens of other jurisdictions across the country have adopted similar policies in the age of technology, and here locally,

dozens of our departments have submitted surveillance technology policies, which you are aware because we have reviewed and approved every single one which pertain to family technology ranging from the use of security cameras, to automatic license plate readers, to radiofrequency identification, there are dozens of technologies outstanding. and many departments that still have yet to come into compliance with the 2019 law. i believe the ordinance has already been a fledgling success for the first time in our city's history. members of the public can go online and see a list of every technology own or used by the government here in san francisco. they can view policies for how that technology is used, how long it is shared, how long it is stored, and they can hold the government accountable for deviation from those policies.

to me this represents a significant and important cultural and policy shift from where we were a decade ago when revelations of mass secret surveillance by the nsa made headlines around the world. and yet, three years after we collectively celebrated the passage of the surveillance oversight policy law, we find ourselves contending with a proposal that could do aspects of that law. i have been quite consistent in my thinking about the pallet, which i just expressed in the last item, which is that we should use it as a port of last resort when we -- [ indiscernible ] -- or need to amend the charter or pass a bond. as i have expressed to the chief and the police department and the mayor's office, i would like to see us try to exhaust a

legislative remedy that is available to us before proceeding to the pallet. that remains my position this morning and we have had -- proceeding to the ballot. we have had productive conversations to the mayor's office. i have remained committed to working collaboratively and hope we can mutually agree on a path forward. in response to the mayor's measure, along with supervisors preston, chand, ronen, and walton, we put forward another ballot measure, which is item eight, where we are hearing with item seven, which would reinforce existing and subjection to a higher threshold for amendment by the board of supervisors. for a law like this one which effectively regulates the regulators, gives members of the public additional confidence that it will not be subject to manipulation when opportunity presents itself. before i turn it over to

mr. power and chief scott, i want to note that the p.d., this past week, drafted a policy governing the use of third-party security cameras. and while it needs some work, and should be publicly vetted, as we have done with other policies, it is a gesture of good faith and i would much rather spend my time in my office's time working to fine tune that policy and move it through the established process. i will conclude my remarks on a cautiously optimistic note. we have some work ahead of us. that work can be spent in a tough public battle over the next three months or it can be spent working together to bring departments, including the san francisco police department, into compliance with the surveillance oversight law. i happen to think that our efforts are better spent in the

latter category, but that, of course,, will require pulling both measures from the ballot on or before march 1st, which is the last day to pull it. march 4th is the last day to pull it. we will see what transpires over the next couple of weeks, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the people of the city and county will see is all working together. with that, i will turn it over to mr. power and chief scott for their remarks. inc. you. >> -- thank you. >> thank you. i will speak for one minute because i know the chief has another commitment at noon that he has to run to and i want to get him to speak on this as well. very briefly, i echo your sentiments, supervisor. it is our goal and desire to move this forward legislatively. there is an ordinance currently pending. we have been working with your office collaboratively and i appreciate that collaboration. i'm optimistic that we will --

cooler heads will prevail and we will move forward a policy that we can all support. with that, i would like to turn it over to the chief to get some context as to what specifically is needed. i am speaking to item number 7. that this measure is intended to support. chief? >> thank you. >> good morning, chair peskin. good morning, supervisor chan, supervisor mandelman and mr. power. first of all, supervisor peskin, i want to thank you for listening and working with us on this very important issue. i also want to thank mr. power from the mayor's office and the mayor for also listening and agreeing to work together cooperatively. basically, i will give you the very short version of the issue for the police department. we understand and respect they

don't intend to breach that. we thank you for your work to get us to this point in terms of identifying all the surveillance technology policies. the police department feels we can better use technology to address some of the challenges as a relates to acrylic -- criminal activity in our city and county. and specifically there are things that we believe we can be more efficient at in terms of life access to camera feeds when crimes or occurring or where there is information, credible information that gives every indication that crimes are about to occur. we are talking about serious crimes and we're talking about things like what happened in union square on november 19th. that is the spirit that we are working within. we do believe that there is room to improve our existing policies and look forward to working with you and the mayor's office to give our input on what those things might look like.

and the law is saying too that as we work together on this, we are all about equity in the city. we believe that a thoughtful discussion about the policy issues, they will give us a better opportunity to address issues city wide. not just we saw on november 19th, but areas in the city that have been continuously, and traditionally hard-hit by violent crime, drug dealing, drug overdoses as a result of those dealings. i truly believe from a policing standpoint, smart, thoughtful and boundless use of technology can help us get to a better place in addressing those issues. that is the spirit from which we are working on. i want to thank you for your willingness to work with us and we look forward to coming up with a policy that makes sense for our city. >> thank you, chief. i have any number of questions,

but it sounds like we are on the right path. you are under a time crunch, which is not your fault or our fault, it is the fact that we were delayed in our and 20 minutes and starting -- in starting our meeting this morning. i will reserve those questions and god willing and fingers crossed, we will work on that before the end of the month, unless there are any questions for you from committee members, go to your meeting, chief. okay, supervisor chan? >> thank you. >> chair peskin, i just want to thank you. i am pleased to hear that we will continue on what we have been talking about in terms of the way we are treating these ballot measures and initiatives. we can find ways to work this out through legislation. i think that it is all the better for the policymakers and

for our voters that we are not -- we are doing our job and making the decision that we are elected to make and do. think you. >> thank you. why don't we open item seven and eight to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on these items? >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 24940524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. if you are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comments. we currently have 15 callers in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors.

on behalf of the organization and lockstep with our partners at the aclu and other civil rights and social justice organizations, we oppose any efforts to got the san francisco surveillance law which protects the community from abuses by sfpd and we know that these concerns are also shared by members of the board. at a time when the executive branch has used harmful rhetoric to criminalize broad swaths of our most vulnerable neighbors and in a time when the police selected to draw from the m.o.u. with the district attorney's office, which helps hold the department accountable, and in a time when the findings for the most recent ripple report once again found black san franciscans are overrepresented per capita in all interactions with sfpd. the mayor is proposing to roll back civil rights and can encourage continuing police abuse.

the department was unable to answer the most basic questions in a culture that is unwilling to change. so many of our communities have been harmed by over policing and under no circumstances should sfpd have virtually unchecked this. san franciscans have the right to know about and regulate the surveillance technology that they have access to and how it is utilized. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> good morning. i am speaking today as a 32 year resident of district eight. especial good morning to supervisor mandelman. i'm here to express my strong opposition to the mayor's measure to weaken san francisco teacher surveillance ordinance. during the george floyd protest, i went to every march and rally i could find, did you? we were there to demand justice and accountability.

instead, the san francisco police department unjustly, unaccountably and illegally subjected us to surveillance. the department's actions speak louder than their words here today. now the mayor wants to reward and institutionalize this unacceptable behaviour. i agree with chair peskin. the mayor should immediately withdraw her measure, but failing that, all board members who have not already done so, and yes, i'm looking at you, supervisor mandelman, should add their names to the countermeasure and sign the ballot argument against the mayor's measure and in support of the countermeasure. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is tim kingston. i am a member of the san francisco public defender for racial justice committee.

i helped pass this legislation. i know what is in it. the problems with the mayor freed and chiefs got with the surveillance ordinance for not accurate. the legislation already allows for low enforcement access in the event of circumstances. i repeat, this is already in the legislation. the mayor is driving a bulldozer through the back wall of the legislation to knock it down when the front door is welcoming. or proposal is unnecessary and must be withdrawn. why is she lobbying a grenade when she has a key to the house? the mayor is succumbing to a moral panic about crime, like most moral panics, it targets a solution. it was put in place to prevent such a mistake. surveillance tech makes mistakes. we know that surveillance tech frequently misidentified as people of color. we know that surveillance technology is invariably concentrated on and targeted on the poor and communities of color. we know this is why the country has more people in jail than any other industrial nation.

the ordinance as it stands protects our constitutional rights, our privacy and civil rights. the mayor said during the george floyd black lives matter protest that she wants to reform the police and protect black lives and civil rights. white she going back on her word. the wind has shifted. she should not. withdraw this legislation and please stop browbeating the supervisors to participate in this. thank you. >> thank you, speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i am with the foundation and i am a resident of the district eight. along with a diverse coalition of organizations across the city and region, we have supported the landmark surveillance technology ordinance when it passed in 2019 because of its key goals of transparency, democratic control and public

input. that is why we oppose the mayor's initiative which would get the ordinance and allow police to evade oversight. the sfpd has a long history of surveilling marginalized communities, including the lgbt community, labor activists, and communities of color. we should not give them a blank check to determine when and where to deploy surveillance technology. there must be guard rails to hold the police accountable and allow the community to be heard. that is why we support the ballot initiative which seeks to maintain oversight of surveillance. ultimately, we urge the mayor to pull her measure from the ballot. the police must follow the law, not tried to evade it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i have lived in the castro district for 22 years and i

worked downtown in the design district. i strongly oppose giving them unchecked surveillance powers without any public oversight to hold them accountable. our city will be forever changed if the sfpd has the unlimited authority to secretly monitor us for any reason they choose, including our constitutional right to protest. i believe that it is invasive and it will be used to unfairly target activists and marginalized communities, so i urge the mayor to withdraw this measure from the ballot. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i am the senior government relations court nature for the council on the mayor of islamic relations. as part of a diverse coalition of community members and organizers and organizations who advocated for the surveillance ordinance originally. we urge mayor breed to pull the proposal that would get the city's surveillance.

san francisco must not give the san francisco p.d. virtually unchecked surveillance powers. in her proposal that feeds on the fears of crimes and it is an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. the fact that it can virtually give unchecked authority to and realtime surveillance footage, in any other surveillance technology without oversight is really concerning. and this also includes technology like drones or microphones that record our voices from afar. the sfpd has the tools in order to access the information. they just need to go through the proper process of doing so. this proposal is a way to go around that and it causes significant damage to our community. what it will do is, you know, the technology has never been more invasive and we know that without this oversight then this

could be used for activists of people in color and people in poverty. we urge the commission, the committee to reject this. we want them to fully support the ordinance in its full authority and to reject the mayor's proposal. thank you, so much. >> my apologies. thank you, next speaker. >> good morning. i am a staff attorney with san francisco. together with 35 community groups, we submitted a letter to the board opposing the mayor's ballot measure. we also support the existing law and we commend supervisors' efforts to defend it. we already know in san francisco what happens when the sfpd deployed surveillance without safeguards.

for decades sfpd targets activists and demonstrators. they kept intelligence files on law-abiding residents and engaged in discriminatory surveillance. as a supervisor peskin said, the community came together and a near unanimous board past the surveillance oversight law in 2019. for nearly three years, sfpd has defied that law. even today, they are out of compliance on a number of things. the mayor's measure would reward the sfpd for refusing to submit to this oversight. it would turn back the clock the police cannot be trusted with this unchecked power. surveillance technology has never been more invasive and there needs to be guardrails. we all want san francisco to be safe, which includes being safe from police abuse. mayor breed seizes upon fear to massively expand surveillance

that will harm the very people most affected by serious crimes. make no mistake, as this grows, civil lights -- civil rights and civil liberties shrink, and it is black and brown people and people in poverty who bear the brunt of the violence. the mayor should pull the measure and come into full compliance with the city's existing surveillance law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. >> please proceed with your comment. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. i opposed this and any attempt to make this an oversight law. surveillance technology is invasive and disproportionately negatively impacts people of color and low income

communities. we need to hold high standards of public transparency and oversight for all police surveillance in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. can we get the next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is ashley morris. i work in the financial district for the last 15 years and commuted on barth. i support the 2019 ordinance and i opposed the mayor's attempt to got it. i urge her to withdraw the measure from the ballot. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next speaker, please? >> hello, excuse me. my name is christina. i have lived in district nine for 25 years and i am adamantly opposed to allowing the sfpd to get a blank check on

surveillance. that makes us all less safe, not more. they have already got a record of discriminatory treatment for people of color, towards activists. they have broken the law but illegally spying on black lives matter activists, and giving them unfettered access to technology without any oversight is just going to make us all less safe and destroy our civil liberties. please remove this from the ballot and i support the other supervisors who are trying to keep the existing law in place. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> hi, my name is ajay. i am a resident. i am in d6 right now and. [ indiscernible ]

-- my statement is to oppose the measures and to get the ordinance. just for a few reasons. quickly to help enforce the ordinance which has taken a lot of work to get into play -- [ indiscernible ] -- dealing with external forces, and to protect individual liberties free of charge. thank you very much. happy valentine's day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes, good afternoon, this is tracy from oakland privacy. i am calling to ask the supervisors to please affirm and support the current existing surveillance law. in 2018, san francisco voters passed prop b., overwhelmingly

saying yes to transparency and accountability in the interest of protecting privacy. oversight is not an impediment to public safety or to anything else. this is a strong argument that should not fall. we ask for the mayor to remove her or to withdraw her efforts. we ask for san francisco p.d. to come into full compliance with the ordinance and we ask for all the supervisors to endorse the countermeasure if it proves necessary to move forward with it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a constituent of district 10 and i'm calling today to

object to the current level of surveillance. we know that in accessing the national network of surveillance, they have access to a variety of f.b.i. and d.o.j. sources that are questionably illegal, in addition to the regular utilization of surveillance technology that is against this. we have seen and demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with elected authority, whether it be their unwillingness to comply with oversight or oversight by the supervisors, or oversight by anyone. they are violent, they are destructive to society. today i am calling supervisors to ask you to please continue your efforts to limit their ability to survey everybody and continue to increase efforts to

bring into oversight. it is definitely called for. it has spilled over into our security of democracy. we can see that they have already demonstrated their usage of surveillance and at one time they were willing to break the law. we can see that they intend to do it and oppress our ability to speak and to politically oppress those they disagree with. with that evidence already here, i thank you for the measure and the mayor's actions here are deplorable. i hope we will save voters on the ballot. thank you for your efforts to negotiate a way out of this and to bring the lawless sfpd. >> your time has expired.

can we get the next caller, please? >> good morning, i am from d2 and urging that the mayor withdraw this absolute travesty of a ballot measure. urging the supervisors to support the current in-place technology surveillance law. there are ways for the p.d. two, with compliance, use surveillance, which is ridiculous, but they violated it and they were supposed to report in november what they had done, and here we are in the middle of february and we don't have a report. there's no transparency, there's no accountability. no, we cannot support a surveillance proposal that takes up all the -- takes off all the guardrails. happy valentine's day.

let's show our city and the people of our city some real love and support what is currently in place. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> chair peskin, honourable supervisors, my name is brian. here on behalf of unsecured -- of secure justice. we ask that the mayor withdraw her ballot proposal. we appreciate the comments made earlier by chair peskin and chief scott about working together on a youth policy without having to introduce competing ballot measures. this board has proven it is reasonable by unanimously approving almost 19 separate camera policies, submitted by other departments. in addition, sfpd has proven it is capable of navigating the existing framework and having submitted policies. we provide free training to municipal staff as they attempt

to navigate these mechanisms in the beginning and we did work with police on this to approve policy. providing the sound place to discuss potential red flags and how to mitigate them. we are happy to continue working with the team as they submit future proposals. none of what the police have said rises to the level of a charter amendment. they are seeking approval of specific uses for particular technologies. that is best suited for a use policy discussion and we are happy to hear the administration acknowledge that this morning. we agree it is time for the rhetoric to calm down. no one condones a violent crime or what is happening in the tenderloin. the police can submit the request of the existing framework and we will work together to ensure it is created. thank you for listening. >> thank you. thank you for all your work on this item. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i have been a resident of district six for the past five years. i'm not an expert on legislative verbiage, but it seems unnecessarily broad. i don't understand why mass firearms and burglary are in the same category. furthermore, public safety crisis includes areas where there has been a documented increase in violent crimes over a 14 day period or longer. spike in crime over a short period of time is likely to be an anomaly, giving sfpd to use limited or misleading data to target areas they see fit. chief scott also made a comment that certain things can be more efficient in the process, but sometimes processes can't be more efficient or streamlined. to me it sounds like we are using a bizarre and uncommon burglary event to justify spending surveillance. i strongly oppose this new ordinance. thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i am a community advocate with the asian-american law caucus. we are one of 36 letters that were submitted on february 10th to the board of supervisors. sharing serious concerns with the mayor's measures to undo it. the asian law caucus has long worked with civil rights and civil liberties of the bay area residents, including immigrants and people of color on house populations and -- unhoused populations and religious minorities. the board has recognized before that sfpd has and continue to disproportionately and unduly target these communities through the use of surveillance technologies, making the ordinance critical to protect their privacy. surveillance impacts all of our

lives. this is why the ordinance must be protected. communities must be given the opportunity to engage in oversight and transparency to policing and surveillance activities that impact them and the mayor and the sfpd should not be allowed to sidestep the city. our communities in san francisco and across the bay area have long asked for less, not more surveillance reflected in the campaigns are organizations that have severed the city's relationship to the joint terrorism task force and other federal agencies that have targeted and harassed our communities without suspicion. what we have long asked for is more investment in housing, healthcare, and education programs that help our diverse communities to thrive. we ask you to do all in your power. reiterate the sfpd must comply with the law and that any and

all exceptions be subject to the democratic processes provided under the ordinance. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of district five in san francisco. i strongly oppose any attempt to scale back the city's surveillance technology ordinance. is concerning that mayor preet has seized upon fear about crime as an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. it gives the sfpd unchecked authority to use realtime surveillance footage in any technology without public oversight. in 2020, the police even broke the law to illegally spy on black lives matter activists and this new proposal by the mayor rewards the police for lawless behaviour. san franciscans have the right to know what surveillance technology the police have and how they are using it, and the strengths to put in place to protect their rights.

we must uphold the current law. i support the counterproposal. this is authored by the supervisors, and my own supervisor to maintain oversight of police surveillance. there must be guardrails to hold the police accountable and ensure transparency. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, i am the northern california organizer with california immigrant policy centre. i am calling because i, along with other organizations submitted a letter to oppose this new law that gives virtually unchecked power to sfpd to use these new technologies. i strongly encourage the supervisors to oppose this law and keep the previous law.

there is really no reason to give unchecked power and surveillance data. the use of fear and fear mongering for crimes. this is an argument that has been used for a decade to crack down on communities of color, and for communities and activists. we already have proven records of sfpd abusing power. i strongly urge the supervisors to oppose this new law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> greetings. i am calling -- i don't need to echo all of what has been said. everyone has been very

articulate in what has been said. one of the things that i do want to say is if there is checks in place, what would be the reason for removing them? the only reason we would want to remove them is because -- [ indiscernible ] -- that is not rocket science. i am going to say that i reject the mayor's attempt -- [ indiscernible ] -- i ask that you not supported as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am not a district eight resident, but i will also say hi to supervisor mandelman and support -- urge him to support the measure to strengthen the surveillance technology ordinance. i commute into the city to work and also to see my adorable 18

month old niece. i really want her to grow up in a city that supports civil rights against backlash and that's what we are seeing right now is a backlash of civil rights. we saw it in the eighties and nineties and they gave us the system's mass incarceration that our country is dealing with right now. we also sought after the movement for black lives. we saw blue lives matter, the thin blue line and that gave us donald trump. now the city of san francisco is facing a backlash against the civil rights protections for surveillance and just as it did under the previous president in time for the city to stand up for civil rights and take the difficult but ultimately correct stand against the backlash and to protect its residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon, i am head of library users association. i like to comment on item eight, file number 22, concerning acquisition and the use of surveillance technology. first of all, i would like to say that we appreciate the motives and much of what is in this, but are concerns that its focus leaves out certain very important intrusions and surveillances on the public. what is proposed talks about basically controlling what

departments may do with respect to the purchase of surveillance technology or accepting and expanding grants to purchase such material for the purpose of the department and surveilling certain people in the public. what this leaves out is the public's cost on certain technologies that are very surveillance rich or expensive. this does not take into account, apparently and i am concerned that it may not. business models which are in use that involved renting or using this software, such as youtube that is being used to transmit this very meeting, youtube is owned by google. they announced recently that there is no anonymous view on youtube because google owns it. it doesn't, and it also excludes third-party use of information that has been gotten such as, for example,, zoom for library virtual programs. the people using it are surveilled on in the library doesn't get the information, but the vendor of the supplier does. we hope that you can include those dangers of surveillance as well. thank you.

>> next speaker. >> we are doing our last double check to see if there are additional speakers one moment that was our last color. >> public comment is closed. we will see what the next couple of weeks hold. hopefully, as i said, we will work it out under the dome and it will come back to the board in the form of the approval of future use policies and tweaks to this section of code. thank you, supervisor mandelman for your support in 2019. supervisor chan was a member of this board, but we will have an opportunity to vote on some amendments undoubtedly in the future unless we all end up on the ballot, in which case, the chief and i get to go to a lot

of democratic clubs. okay. with that, i will make a motion to file items seven and eight. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> could you please read the last item? >> yes, item number 9 is a hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the campaign and government code conduct to expand their prohibition on the solicitation of behest of payments to include city contractors seeking the board of supervisors' approval and to require approval by the ethics commission and super

majority approval the board of supervisors for future amendments to local behest a payment restrictions. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, and members of the public, sorry for our late start, but it looks like we are going to get done here after this item and i will keep it brief. i think we are all familiar with the substance of this item as it has been passed unanimously at the board of supervisors just a couple of months ago. i won't call on the controller, but just represent the fact that this measure would not increase any costs to government. i want to thank the cosponsors who signed to put it on the ballot. supervisors chan, preston, mar, and president walton. for members of the public who have not been following this issue of public policy, what has been put forward for the june

ballot, unless removed on or before march 4th is virtually identical to what the board of supervisors passed in december. that is an ordinance that prohibits city officials, including ambers of the board of supervisors elected to department heads from soliciting payments from parties to have matters pending. it is an area that was ripe for corruption and as with earlier items regarding refuse disposal, the intent of this measure is to book and a disastrous and embarrassing corruption scandal. in fact,, among the high-profile instances that we have cited in the context of passing the legislation, or payment solicited by the public works director from recology.

it is all quite connected. this is yet another anticorruption measure. frankly, because i talked a little bit about my code of using the ballot as the last resort, the reason this has been set for the ballot is because i worry and have seen these types of policies and laws watered down in the past. and the reason we are putting it on the ballot is because it would create, if approved by the voters, a much higher threshold for watering it down or causing other mischief. that said, there is a potential path to avoiding the ballot for this measure. i think that must include using our legislative power and that of the ethics commission to move these provisions from one chapter of the code to another

chapter specifically chapter 2 of the campaign governmental conduct code where it would be subject to a higher vote threshold to amend by the board of supervisors, in essence, protecting the integrity of the existing ordinance. as regulators received to regulate themselves, those are often the easiest regulations to unravel, one way or the other whether at the ballot, or through collaboration with the ethics commission. i would like to subject us to a higher threshold for amendment. that is the reason it is before us and i wanted to share it publicly and get any feedback from committee members. are there any members of the committee who would like to comment on this item? supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair peskin. i will say that i was surprised to see this in my binders.

as i was looking over the agenda for today because i did think that one of the reasons we had done this at the board was to avoid the necessity of having to go forward to the voters. we still have some items and concerns. there will be a duplicated file floating around there that we would have tried to further address. i'm curious about what prior examples of watering down there has been of prior ethic -- ethics laws passed by the board. >> yes. i can tell you that. as a matter of fact, the class of 2,000's board late in the two thousands passed a comprehensive ethics reform that were gutted,

in part by the board of supervisors that was seated in 2009. that changed the threshold for lobbyists, lobbying reporting, and they have sins largely worked themselves back into the law. they largely gutted something that a lot of people worked on together in a collaborative fashion and was watered down. the file was duplicated. there are some movements afoot that i am engaging in, but dubious about. i think what i am signalling here is if we make any final tweaks or changes, that we move it to chapter 2 of the campaign in the governmental conduct code and make it more difficult for

future boards of supervisors and ethics commissions to water it down or otherwise got it. >> got it. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on item number 9? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been an muted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have eight callers on the line. let me double check if there is anybody online to speak. there are no callers online to speak.

>> public comment is going once, going twice, public comment is closed. i will make a motion to file this item. >> on the motion to file the matter... [ roll call ] motion passes without objection. >> do you have any confirmation before we adjourn in the february 22nd, 2022 at 10:00 am meeting? >> i just need to get final confirmation from various parties, san francisco government t.v., tech chat and farther -- final approval from

the department of the board. my thought is it will proceed as scheduled for the february 22nd meeting at 10:00 am. >> okay. colleagues, mar your calendars. members of the public, it is virtually certain that the items that we continue today as amended will appear on tuesday, february 22nd, 2022 at a special meeting of the rules committee at 10:00 am. we are ad

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the

people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land

filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box

especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san

francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us

>> i am so happy. african-americans in the military from the revolutionary war to the present, even though they have not had the basic civil rights in america. they don't know their history. in the military the most sacrifice as anyone in this country to be willing to lay down your blood and fight. i believe that all african-americans have served because they love this country and the hope that the citizens.

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today.

>> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off

the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center

so come

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 14th, 2022 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. happy valentine's day to everyone. i am the chair of the committee. i am joined by supervisor preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk today is erica major. i want to thank and acknowledge the folks at san francisco government t.v. for staffing this meeting. thank you, madame clerk. do you have any announcements? >> the minutes will reflect that this committee are participating in a remote meeting via videoconference. i'm getting a little bit of feedback.

okay. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invite public participation. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. each speaker will be allowed to minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415)655-0001. (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-497-689-2798. 2-497-689-2798 and press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak quietly

and slowly and turned on your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment by e-mailing us. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. comments may also be sent via u.s. postal service to the city hall. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board agenda of march first, otherwise -- unless otherwise stated. madame chair? >> thank you very much. please call item one. >> i'm so sorry, my internet is one key. did you ask me to call item

number 1? >> yeah. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate one montgomery street, a.k.a. 125 montgomery street as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in the planning code and assert appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-497-689-2798. press pound and pound again if you have not done so already. please press star three to line up to speak. the system will indicate you have raised your hand in confirmation. >> thank you. thank you supervisor peskin for introducing this item. you have the floor. >> thank you, madame chair, supervisor preston, and thank you for a year ago voting to initiate the land marking of one

montgomery street, which the board unanimously approved and subsequently went to the historic preservation commission. the historic preservation commission unanimously voted to recommend it for landmark designation that is before us today. one montgomery is significant for its association with the reconstruction of the financial district, following the 1906 earthquake and fire. it is architecturally and historically significant. it is a well-preserved example of an earlier 20th century banking temple and italian renaissance revival style with, as you will see in a moment, a grand interior, with high artistic value. i'm reading from the landmark designation ordinance itself. it was designed by a recognized master architect, louis poke and in includes masterwork from master craftsman arthur putnam.

i want to think the planning department for their excellent case report and for being here to present today. we will turn it over to them. >> thank you. i have a brief slide presentation, if i can pull that up here. sorry, just one minute. >> it is attached to our committee packet if you are having trouble. we can have missed major put it up. >> yeah, i'm sorry.

i might have to do that. it is not letting me. >> no problem. erica, do you want to do that? >> sorry, there we go. >> thank you. sorry about that. good afternoon, supervisors. i am from the planning department. before you as supervisor peskin mentioned is an ordinance for landmark designation of one montgomery street, which is also known as 125 montgomery street and as the crocker national bank building. next slide, please. the board's resolution initiating landmark designation of one montgomery street was heard by the historic preservation commission on august 4th, 2021. at the hearing, the commission heard comments in support of the designation from one public comment or. the commission voted 6-0 with

commissioner wright recused, to approve a resignation -- a resolution landmark designation. finding, as supervisor peskin had mentioned, the property is historically significant force association with reconstruction in the financial district following the 1906 earthquake and fire and the building is architecturally and historically significant of an excellent example of early 20th century banking temple, with ornate and richly detailed interiors that exhibit high artistic value and our the works of master architects and craftsmen. with a period of significance of 19 -- 1908 to 1924. one montgomery street retains one of one of downtown san francisco's most imposing and historically publicly accessible spaces and its finest predepression banking hall interiors. described in splendid survivors, san francisco's downtown architectural heritage as a grand interior with its

sumptuous furnishings, fluted columns and ceiling. the character defining features outlined in the landmark ordinance include interior spaces and finishes in the 1908 elevator lobby, 1908 and 1920 banking halls and the basement lobby and main vault as would be warranted for such ornate spaces. next slide, please. that completes my presentation unless you have any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. colleagues, do we have any questions or comments for her? >> i don't. she has done a great job, as usual. thank you. >> thank you. madame clerk, let's go to public comment on this item then.

>> madame chair, we are checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already and would like to speak, please press star three and the system will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that you have been on muted and you may begin your comments. we have nine listeners today with one in the queue. let's take that caller, maria. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from san francisco heritage calling in support of this landmark designation. just in setting alone, one montgomery is an amazing candidate for landmark. everybody can see it therefrom market street and recognize the workmanship of louis poke, one of the city's most renowned architects. i want to also say, put a bug in your ear that this beautiful building, what makes it so

amazing is the public accessibility. i hope that in future, that any use for this building takes that into account. it is our shared heritage and needs to be accessible to the public. thank you again so much for this. we are in full support of this landmark. >> thank you, woody. >> thank you for your comments. that concludes the queue. >> thank you so much, madame clerk. public comment on this item is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> thank you. madame clerk, please call roll call. >> on that motion this. [ roll call ] >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. thank you, supervisor peskin.

madame clerk, please call item number 2. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate the fresco titled allegory of california and the grand stairwell between tenth and 11th floors of the city club of san francisco as a landmark consistent with standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item two should call the number on the screen. that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-497-689-2798. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, press star three to line up to speak. the system will prompt that you have raised your hand and confirmation. madame chair? >> thank you so much, madame clerk. again, supervisor peskin, thank you for introducing this item. the floor is yours. >> thank you chair mel guard and supervisor preston.

i will keep it brief. i want to thank my colleagues for their unanimous support in initiating the landmark designation of diego rivera's first work in san francisco and thank the planning department staff for the case report. it is a great read if you have not read it. and thank you to the historic preservation commission for their unanimous support. this is -- i know you have seen this, at the tenth floor of the pacific stock exchange, the san francisco stock exchange known as the city club, which was a dining facility associated with the stock exchange. the year of significance is 1931 when mr. rivera and a remarkable crew of artists puts that true

fresco in place. it is the second of diego rivera's works that the board of supervisors is landmark king. the first being at his second undertaking at the art institute on russian hill. there is one more diego rivera work that has yet to be landmark. it is temporarily at the s.f. moma, but someday will be returned to your district, supervisor. and at some point we will get around to land marking the third. i know they have already done all of the research. she is ready to go. i don't want to put words in her mouth, and i really want to thank the community that you will hear from.

you are also in receipt of a letter dated from yesterday from them, and with that, i will turn it over to you. >> thank you again, supervisor peskin. missed major, if you can share my slides for this one, please. >> absolutely. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am planning department staff. as you have heard before you today is landmark resignation of diego rivera's fresco titled "allegory of california, which is located on the wall and ceiling of a grand staircase in the city cab -- club of san francisco. the spaces formally known as a stock exchange. again, as mentioned, allegory of california it was created by diego rivera with assistance from viscount john hastings,

clifford white, and a plasterer named matthew barnes. the work was done between december 1930 and march 1931 of the beginning of rivera's first visit to san francisco. this is the first fresco painted by him in the united states. next slide, please. the board's resolution is initiating landmark designation of allegory of california that was heard by the historic preservation commission on november 3rd, 2021. at the hearing, the commission heard comments in support of the designation from three public commenters and they heard from legal council of the property owner who spoke against the designation. the commission voted 7-0 to approve a resolution recommending designation. the fresco is culturally and historically significant force association with a mexican artist, diego rivera. as the first artist work painted

in the united states, it is also significant for its influence on the new deal era mural program and the mural is a movement of the 1960s and 1970s. further, the fresco is significant for its association with the latin x arts communities. a significant and vibrant part of san francisco's cultural heritage. it is located in the upper floors of an office building. it has been accessible in several ways including at his grand unveiling in 1931 and also through curity -- curity lead tours.

and other events in cooperation with san francisco heritage or the art deco society. they promote the fresco as the future of the rental facilities. as well as the city club have maintained limited hours will numbers of the public could view the fresco and other architecture and art work inside the club, and also, as shown in the newspaper clippings, there have been various parties or other special events, including fundraisers, fashion shows, and other celebratory parties with celebrities, as noted in newspaper clippings in your file. last slide, please. that concludes my presentation, unless you have any questions. thank you. >> and not to put too fine a

point on it, but relative to her statements with regard to public access, council for the property owner being one martin brown, and council being andrew junius, claim that pursuant for article 10 of the planning code that this is not a publicly accessible building, so the record clearly shows that it is, and the land marking of this interior fresco is appropriate. i want to thank victoria wong, the deputy city attorney for looking into this issue and confirming that we have every mark -- every right to landmark it, even if they don't like it. >> thank you so much, supervisor peskin. before we take public comment i wanted to say a couple things. i want to be added as a

cosponsor. thank you so much for this. i just wanted to talk a little bit about how important this mural is to the latino community in san francisco. because of what it is. diego rivera was the giant of the art world, as was his wife, freda kahlo. san francisco was an important part of their personal history. they were also very important part of our history. and what is depicted in the mural that you also sponsored to landmark before is that it shows the interaction between mexico and san francisco in terms of looking at the industrialization of our country, of the indigenous, of the working class, of everything that was going on and how artists and intellectuals in mexico and in san francisco were thinking about it.

it is really, really important for the latino community to be recognized for its contribution, and specifically the movement of mexican artists that spawned the murals and all of the things that later became such an important part of showing places for the mexican and latino community in san francisco. i just want to thank you for this recognition of the contribution of the very important mexican artist to the life of our city, but also how important our city was to diego rivera and freda kahlo. thank you so much. i am really looking forward to the public comment on this one. supervisor preston, please go ahead. >> thank you. thank you supervisor peskin for your leadership. please add me as a cosponsor as well. >> thank you, supervisor preston. madame clerk, let's go to public comment on this one. >> okay.

adding your additional cosponsor. we are checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. if you haven't done so already and would like to speak, press star three to be added to the cue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been on muted. it looks like we have 14 listeners today with two in the queue. let's take the first color, please. >> by the way, dr. judy baca who is expert on this matter, is under a time constraint. if she can go first, that would be great. i don't know -- >> i just realized that she was on. judy, if we can identify her in the queue. >> there's only two speakers, so it is probably -- >> let's see. we only see the last six numbers. we would have to know what numbers they are calling from. >> i see. okay. let me try to find out. let's go ahead and take the

first public comment and i will find out. >> thank you. >> hi, this is alan martinez. i am calling in support of the land marking. i contributed to the letter that the san francisco latino historical society submitted in terms of the section on the way that rivera masterfully integrated the architecture in the painting. for example, if you look at the painting, the stone ledge is moving out from the landing and the figures appear to be stepping up in the opposite direction as if they were going on a stair in the opposite direction. it is the full height. anyway, in the letter i detail the way in which this painting

really is part of that space. is part of the stairway and part of the movement upwards. we didn't say anything about the message of the painting, but it doesn't look overtly political, but it is subtly political because he is not showing the abundance of california merely as objects. he is not just showing fruits and vegetables and gold, he is showing the workers. if you remember your mark one '01 and marxism, the value of any object is due to the labor put into it. it is not from the thing in and of itself. he is showing the abundance of california being the result of the work that has gone into california, including manual labor and science. that is his subtle political message.

but the main point i was making is that it has -- if moved into another space, it would not have the same effect. it would completely integrate into the architecture. thank you. >> i will add, as set forth in the case report, the man who helped get him to do this mural said that he held the purse strings and would make sure it wasn't too radical. >> let's take the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from san francisco heritage. just a follow-up, the selection of an avowed communist to adorn the walls of a capitalist institution was very extensively discussed in the press at the time, and the selection of a mexican artist to complete the american commission was divisive amongst a lot of the san francisco arts community. despite these criticisms, this fresco is one of rivera's most

significant and well-known works. we continue to be a champion of san francisco's diverse public art and this significant piece is a cultural mainstay. it is worthy of protection, embodying the city judy social and artistic movement. i can't add on any more eloquently than the previous caller or supervisor -- supervisors and how important it is to show different communities and the work they bring to the city. thank you again for your consideration. >> that concludes the queue. if the presenter is in the line, we would like to see if they could raise their hand and if they would press star three right now, we can try to unmute them. i'm not sure. there are 14 listeners. >> we may have lost her. thank you so much.

do we want to give it a minute or two? supervisor peskin. i think we are okay. okay. can we have a motion? >> two more hands popped up. >> thank you. >> let's take the next caller. >> hi, everyone. i am calling in support of having this become a historic landmark. it is crucial in our city. i find it is becoming harder and harder for the general public, especially low income families, the working class, and people of color to have access to historic landmarks that reflect their experiences. i believe it deserves to stay where it was originally completed and to be accessible to the general public. that is all.

thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the last caller. [ indiscernible ] forthcoming, i did send you a letter from a former san francisco art commissioner and fellow and i will read a little bit of an excerpt from her submission. i sent it by e-mail. it hasn't been done formally. the incredible significance, allegory of california, done in 1931 at the city club deserves historical status because rivera's legendary black amazon

who is depicted in the literature, and in holding the riches of california as an agricultural treasure. there mural is steepled with historical figures in california at the time. she will be receiving a formal letter. it is unfortunately a lot of our major art historians are occupied, like dr. judy baca. she just got my e-mail. she could not make it for the testimony, but i will follow up with her to submit something to records. what i want to make sure is that you understand that he got this commission because of the advocacy, not just of that, but the architect. they were good friends. and what they have done -- in his press conference, they said we are selecting rivera because

he is great. he is great as an artist. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> on that motion to recommend item number two made by supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> thank you so much, that motion passes. please call the next item. >> item 3, resolution adding the commemorative new way to the block alley in recognition of activist and her dedication to and impact in san francisco on the global lgbt q community. members who wish to provide public comment should call the

number on the screen, that number is 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 23947 689 2898. pressá3 the lineup to speak until thesystem will indicate you have raise your hand . >> thank you very much megan clerk and welcome supervisor mandolin, the floor is yours. >> thank you chair melgarand good afternoon colleagues . thank you for hearing this resolution to as the clerk said at the commemorative street name to alert alley in recognition of activist sister vish-knew, cofounder of the sisters of perpetual indulgence for her impact on san francisco and the global lgbtq+ community. easter weekend 1979 sister

vish-knew whose legal name is ken bunch cofounded the sisters of perpetual indulgence when she had two friends less than a block away from alert alley from her home base in san franciscointo a worldwide spiritual community service, activist and arts organization with houses and 60 us cities and 14 countries . sister vish-knew and the sisters have been fierce activist and fundraisers of millions of dollars for transgender rights, lgbtq+ youth, aid advocacy and education, prison reform, education and the environment . sister vish-knew's many contributions to the movement include producing one of the first fundraisers for youth with hiv-aids and the first halloween in the castro in 1990 and demanded the inclusion of transgender issues and speakers for the march on washington stonewall 25th anniversary of 1993. sister vish-knew produced the

first midwest gay pride conference at the university of iowa in 1974 and became the second person to apply for a same-sex marriage license in 1976 and attended thewhite knights riots in san francisco following the murder of harvey milk in 1979 . one block alley located off fourth street between 15th and 16th street has been selected for the commemorative street name for several reasons. first is very close to sister vish-knew's longtime home and as i mentioned is also a block away from the site of the sisters first manifestation in 1979 and on the corner of alert alley and dolores street community services has operated a residential program for people living with hiv began as a hospice in 1975 and soon transitioned to a 10 unit residential care facility for formerly homeless men and women withdisabling hiv-aids . i'm requesting the committee send this item out to allow the unveiling of sister vish-knew way on easter weekend in time

to celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and i want to thank and department of public works for their work on this resolution and i want to thank roma who brought the idea of naming a street in the mission dolores neighborhood after sister vish-knew to us and for working with tom soprano in my office to draft the language and of course thanks totom for all hiswork on this and colleagues, i hope to have your support . thank you . >> thank you so much supervisor mandelman. this is exciting. i me asa cosponsor andthank you . madame clark . >> please add me aswell, thank you . >> thank you vice chair peskin. madame clerk can we take public comment on the item? >> dbh is checking to see if

there are colors in the queue. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added . for those on hold continue to wait until thesystem indicates you have been unusually . it looks like we have nine listeners today with 3 in the queue . >> hello supervisors and happy valentine's day. this is sister roma and as rafael mentioned i am the person who came to his office with this idea and i so greatly appreciateyour support and hearing this . this idea. i'll give you a perspective. raffaella as always was an eloquent speakerand covered all the main issues but in my perspective as a sister i've been a sister for 35 years and when i came to the border , this was the sole remaining founder active in the san francisco house.

i served as president for many years and always had a very clear vision about who does the sisters are and the work that we do. compassion for the community at any of the community at large including the trans-communities long before people considered the trans-people writes our feelings. people of color, this has always been a leader in activism and social justice and i'm so proud of thefact that when i joined the order there were just a few of us still active in san francisco and today, we have houses in 60 states on four continents . and it's incredible to me to know that there are people all over the world who are serving their community, fighting for justice and raising a lot of money for people who need it. it all started because sister vish had this crazy idea to go out in these non-habits and created a worldwide movement.

so i'm going toclose it here and thank you for your support . and enjoy the rest of your day. >> thank you foryour comments . next speaker please. >> did afternoon supervisors. i am sister max time, president of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and sister roma, i am incredibly excitedabout this project . sister vish-knew has been an activist for more than half a century and she is still involved with the community and the organization she created in sanfrancisco in 79 . she has transformed the lives of thousands of people for the better andraised millions of dollars for charity .

i still believe she deserves some recognition. sister vish-knew is one of those characters that makes san francisco the city that we love so much and i strongly support this resolution and i'm proud that sister vish-knew way will be a place to celebrate diversity, inclusion and equality in san francisco . andwill inspiregenerations of social activism . thank you so much .>> thank you sisternext and that completes the queue . >> thank you so much madame clerk. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out witha positive recommendation ? >> so moved. >>thank you supervisor peskin. can we take will ? >> on that motion supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] you have 3

aye's. >> that motion passes. thanks for coming. madame clerk, would you please call thenext item . >> item for is the planning code to revise learning codes including among other things regulate massage establishments, eliminate the betterment of certain nonconforming massage establishment uses, prohibit personal services uses for three years at any location where a massage establishment use was closed due to to a violation of the planning code or health code, eliminate exception for the conditional use authorization requirements and associate findings. memberswho wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen . that is 415-655-0001 . the meeting id today is 23947

689 2898. if you have not done so and would like to speak, please press star 3 to speak and the system will indicate you have had confirmation. >> thank you madame clerk . supervisor mandelman do you want to make a remark? >> i have a few and thank you chair and colleagues thank you for your vote on the previous item. you heard this item last week and thank you for accepting amendments that jake and my staff have presented and for continuing this item today. as a quick refresher this is legislation from the massage zoning control ordinance that supervisor ronan sponsored with supervisor preston's cosponsorship. it changes the zoning control for massage establishment and sole practitioners to make it easier for legitimate massage systems to open generally

consistent with services. those changes recommend the concerns over human trafficking while important and real that signify alargely legitimate and valuable health service provided by licensed massage therapist . these concerns are more appropriate and issue within the regulatory purview of the department and the necessary law enforcement and i believe supervisor peskin pointed out the hs increased its regulatory and enforcement role with respect to massage businesses following the majorlegislative effort by former supervisor katie tang . i can confirm not of the changes proposed or the ordinance fromdecember undo any of the health code submissions from that effort . rather this legislation is intended to relax the restricted voting control from massage establishments and in the planning code that had made the union possible for legitimate local massage businesses to reopen or relocate in san francisco and that's an industry that's been

hard hit by the pandemic. the ordinance would allow for a massage establishment to be included as an accessory use commercialdistrict citywide including chiropractic or acupuncture offices . i felt it was important to proceed based on feedback we heard from a local business owner who pointed out that the original ordinance did not allow for massage services for acupuncture or physical therapist offices. they would allowall service personal use. this ordinance recommends the health services and chiropractic and acupuncture offices should be able to staff massage therapist and offer the service to their clients . now the amendments continued decided to today, these amendments were to complete a drafting error in the original ordinance in the last couple of

weeks and then entered the original ordinance to change the zoning from massage establishment to match the zoninghealth services on the ground floor permitted on the second floor and for commercials district citywide. it appears this change was not made in one district , the small scale neighborhood or in situ zoning district . the amendments would allow treatment of risk massage establishments to zoning control be consistent with their treatment and other zoning districts, making massage establishments prevented on the ground floor, conditional on the second floor and prevented about that in making this commitment a footnote in the in situ zoning table for shared massage establishments that make these conditional in the sunset even when they are otherwise permitted and this is simply to keep the staff massage use in that area which is one of the special provisions in 2018 so again i appreciate your taking this up last week and asked that you vote this ordinance out witha positive

recommendation today. veronica at the planning department and city attorney for her work on this . debra neiman with community benefits district for her awareness to this issue. candace combs with san francisco massage council for their advocacy and support as well as noe valley health service providers who led the charge today and my staff for all their work onthis . thank you. >> thank you so much supervisor mandelman. i want to associate you and also jacob on your staff and jan well on my staff for working together on some of th clerical fixes that we noticed last week . i wanted, i don't want to hold out, this legislation is important to go through and we do have the ocean avenue vp in my district, several

acupuncture and chiropractic offices that would benefit for thisand i'm excited that it's going forward . however the ocean avenue mcp does have very distinct controls on massage. because we had a history of illicit use in some of the locations on that corridor in the past. so i want to ensure that the district controls remain in place and those have beenrecent . that activity has been recent and andthe community wanted this way . i will ask that we duplicate the filei know it's a duplication of a duplication already but i want to get that right . both offer clarifying amendments for this duplicated file because i don't want to hold up what we are voting on today. for that i like to go back to the planning department for review and the duplicated file

on page 44 and like to strike out footnote number five because it's contradictory with the next footnote. this would strike out and establishment you requiring the conditional use authorization of the forum story where it is principal or accessory. and then footnote 7 to clarify that a massage accessory use is permitted on the ocean avenue mcp if it is in the health service but not an accessory for personal service. that is substantive change and that would revert accessory massages for personal service to conditional use or just for the ocean avenue mcp. i appreciate them helping us

clarify some of these issues in ourcorridor . and colleagues, do we have any further questions or comments for supervisor mandelman about what i've proposed ? with that madame clerk we will open it for public comment. >> checking to see how many colors we have in thequeue and if you have would like to this item please press star three. the system will on the indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin . we have nine colors with one in queue. >> linda chapman and i appreciate the fact that some efforts have been made to make distinctions for example between personal services between massage by one person establishment versus one employee and also the

distinctions between ones that are accessory to a tourist hotel, medical building or something like that. still unconcerned having seen what goes on in my neighborhood in the past and other neighborhoods. the fact that they're not being blatantly advertised in weekly newslettersand newspapers the way they used to be . young asian girls, beautiful young asian girls or what i see in my neighborhood, a whole plethora of massage they call them that came in at the time when the bars and entertainments are still here. just the fact that their advertising doesn't mean they don't exist. so it's a concern that they should be permitted on the ground floorwithout conditional use as appears to be the case . to me a quick look at the

changes and also that there conditional use on the second floor. why would they be conditional useon the second floor in the commercial district? those places on the second floor up to be housing like they used to be . they are to beallowed to use the vacant retail spaces on the ground floor and why should they not be conditional use on the ground floor ? foot massage which is what they call themselves can be allowed iftheir grasp wanted . but you can't see anything beyond the glass front because everything is covered up. it's certainly not neighborhood service. do you think we need sixfoot massage places in our neighborhood , to serve our neighborhood and even other neighborhoods andwe already have all these nail salons ? >> let the next caller .

>> caller: goodafternoon supervisors . i urge you given but that prohibition as has again demonstrated itself to not be functional in our city and how we seen that further prohibition as endangered all the participants in anow illicit market , has generated an opportunity for further legal activity like trafficking or violence, i urge you rather than prohibiting businesses that you don't like in a specific area, making room for them in the city so that they congregate in this area in a functional and productive manner. you would be less likely to see them distribute up among the city so here we can see these businesses and then the process

of finding their way to places that we didn't really plan for them and that we don't have the resources for them.rather than prohibiting them which prohibiting the oldest profession obviously it's not going to work . i urge you to consider making room for them and figuring out how to deal with the challenges that are there . so take the harder path but the onethat might actually work . thanks, supervisors. >> thank you for your comments. that concludes comment for item number four. >> president: thank you so much. do we have a motionto extend the original file forward with a positive recommendation ? >> so moved. >>chair: thank yousupervisor preston . let's take the role on that . >> the motion by supervisor preston.[roll call vote]

thank you madame clerk. i would like to make amotion that we amend the duplicated file according to what i read into the record . >> on that motion as stated by supervisor melgar,supervisor peskin .[roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> chair: iwould like to make another motion we consider this to the call of the chair . >> motion to continue to the call of the chair. supervisor peskin .[roll call vote] you have 3 aye's.

>> chair: next public comment. >> there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: thank you so much, public comment is closed. please call the next item and thank you visor mandelman. >> item 5 is an order amending the planning code to create essential neighborhood large resident special use districts to preserve and enhance neighborhood context and affordability by among other things requiring conditional use authorization for large residential developments in the district and prohibiting new residential development or expansion of an existing residentialbuilding that would result in adwelling exceeding

4000 square feet of gross area in most circumstances and affirming appropriate findings . members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number five to call the number onthe screen . that number is415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 2497 689 2798. and thenpress pound and pound again . if you have not done so press star 3 to line up to speak . the system prompt would indicate thatyou have confirmation . >> chair: supervisor mandelman, would you like to make any opening remarks ? >> i have a few, thank you chair melgar and your indulgence in considering a thirditem . this is an ordinance i've been working on for quite some time to address the ongoing trends in our are each zoned residential neighborhoods in district neighborhoods what dolores heights, noe valley and i am not the firstsupervisor to try to tackle this problem . supervisors leno in particular

have tried to address it in different ways. the trend which if anyone is not familiar it is what i see as a seemingly constant stream of existing 12 or 1500 square foot older relatively affordable homes being and that is relative being converted into 4000 5000 or more thousand square foot luxury single-family mansions that are flipped and then sold for six or seven or more million dollars. and these kinds of conversions as i said we see district eight every week pretty much erode the city's existing housing stock without adding any new housing and only exacerbates severe affordability crisis which i know we're all well aware. you may recall at the end of january i created an ordinance i introduced aboutthis time last year .

this ordinance, this substitute response to feedback we heard from the planning commission and neighborhoodadvocates and architects and designers . the ordinance before you provides a more scaled-back and simplified approach that has the same goal which is to make it harder to convert an existing single-family home into a much larger and much less affordable one while ideally encouraging much more modestly sized units in the same building envelope that are more accessible to middle income households then the households we talk about. specifically this ordinance would create essential neighborhood large resident special use district or su d that would cover most of district 8 including glen park, noe valley, twin peaks and eureka valley. i would note this area could be expanded by future legislation

of other areas to see this issue. to the same extent we've been seeing it in these district 8 neighborhoods. it would apply to new construction and expansion projects in rh zoning districts that submitted an application after january 1 of this year except inareas already covered the corona heights large residency which extends to residential expansions . in the central neighborhoods it would be required for any project that results in a president residential unit more than 3000 gross square feet including garage space or the equivalent of a 1.2 to 1.1 area if ar whichever is less. for example on a 2000 square foot lot the cu triggered if any unit extent exceeded 2400 square feet . which is most neighborhoods and residential would be 3000

square feet perunit . that said the suv would prohibit approval of any project asked exceeding 4000 square feet. property owners would be entitled to seek a variance for a specific hardship that could be demonstrated as is constitutionallyrequired . still in all cases and 15 percent increase in floor area would always be permitted and measured cumulatively overthe prior 10 years so there's the ability to expand your kitchen . this tenure look back would be permitted after january 1, 2022 so that homeowners are expanding before these new requirements came into effect. i do have some non-substantive amendments that i hope you will make today. that relates to the planning commissions version of this ordinance and which would apply citywide. because of this the board would have to make certain required findings that submissions would otherwise have made.

consequently a super majority will be required to approve the ordinance if you go back to the full board. specifically my office has circulated these amendments to incorporate thefindings that this ordinance is consistent with the general plan and planning code and that it serves the public necessity convenience and welfare . these and other city attorney's office and i would respectfully ask you move to adopt it today. inside the commission also conveyed a number of recommendations including scaling it back to district neighborhoods especially the neighborhoods i mentioned and exploring higher square footage is an expansion as well as fdr-based control. all these recommendations are incorporated before you today the commission has waived its option to rehear the item. with that i want to thank planning department staff and supervisor alone he who's joining us today as well as the

district neighborhood leaders and designers and architects for helping shape this ordinance as well as deputy city attorney jessen on my staff who has been working on this for more thana year. and i look forward to discussing it with you today and asking you recommend these commitments to the full board . and i thank you . >>thank you so much supervisor mandelman. i see audrey here . ifyou're on the roster did you want to speak ? >> thank you supervisor. if i can get this full commission report .thank you. it sounds like he has covered the report so i don't think i'll see it covered but supervisor mandelman's office and the planning department have been working for a while on this ordinance and the

planning commission considered version 1 of the ordinance at their july 22,2021 hearing . during that hearing 28 members of the public spoke in opposition to the ordinance and the seven members of the public spoke in support. after taking public comment the commissioners had a lengthy discussion which concluded with continuing theitem and requesting the sponsor and department further find the ordinance by identifying the problem and developing specific tools to solve the identified issue . so after spending several weeks working with the supervisors that apartment worked to refine the ordinance and bring it back to the planning commission with several new recommended modifications . those modifications were presented to the commission after regularlyscheduled hearing september 23. during public comment 16 people voted against the ordinance . no onespoke in favor. the commissioners had a robust discussion and proposed modifications . they did ultimately recommend approval of the ordinance so as

supervisor mandelman stated they passed along comments they hope the supervisor and board of supervisors would incorporate. they asked for more extensive outreach to thearea that would be affected . reducing the affected area on noe valley and considering something smaller than 1000 square feet, making the date of the legislation a date for products to be grandfathered and examining the appropriateness of the maximum gross area allowed. strengthening tenant protections, raising the minimum ties before conditional use is required andgenerally taking a carrot versus stick approach for encouraging density . again as supervisormandelman stated , the ordinance was reintroduced on january 25 with some of thecommission's recommendations incorporated . the commission was briefed on those changes and waived their

optionto provide a new recommendation on that version . that is all for the planning departmentand i'm here to answer any questions . >> thank you so much. i actually do have a question for you. so in my previous life on the planning commission, this idea of florida area ratios and residential buildings came up along on a host of issues. demolition controls, so i'm wondering how you think this marks a shift and how did the commissioners talk about that issue specifically. >> that's a great question supervisor melgar.

i wish i could say we had a discussion in which everyone agreed on what the appropriate size for a dwelling unitis . the commissioners did not come to a consensus on what that size is . i think the agreement came more that size needs to be scalable in context and many but not all of ourcommissioners were more supportive of an sar approach . that would scale with the existing context of both the building and neighborhood which is why we are grateful supervisor mandelman had offered 2 options. other items one with 2 fdr triggers for the 2000 square feet. the commission is much happier with the 3000 square foot trigger versus the original especially based on the fact that the average unit size in san francisco is at about 3000 square feet based in an actual reality. >> you mean the average of new

averages? >> it's not my house. thank you. and that's really interesting. i think that what you just said about context is figuring it out with f.a.r., it's more about the project than the number. so thank you so much and i want to say thank you supervisor mandelman for your hard work on this. and also for your willingness to put it through as a smaller, and i know in district 7 we are constantly thinking about these things and for us, it's a different district of course than what you're trying to deal with but for us, we do see quite a lot of neighbors who want to do intergenerational

living particularly for chinese families that have two sets of in-laws. we want to make sure that we are able to accommodate all families in san francisco. we haven't found it but i do thank you so much for your willingness to be flexible about your approach. so with that do we have any other comments orquestions for either supervisor mandelman ? okay. with that, madam clerk public comment. >> dbh checking to see how many colors we have in the queue. if you've not done so and would like to this item please bless á3 to be added and for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. you have five in the queue and the first color please.

>> caller: i have a house in noe valley and i amcalling in support of this measure . there's a lack of light rail happening and somebody on the other side have of me as a considerable decrease in light and someone on the other side who wants to supersize their house to 5500 square feet, possibly more and i just feel like the neighborhood is changing into something that it was never meant to be so i appreciate your support. >> thank you for your comments, nextspeaker please . >> evening supervisors. many thanks to supervisor mandelman for putting forth this ordinance . we in noe valley are ground

zero [bleep] monster homes . that needs some sort of control on out of scale homes that are nothingbut a menace to the planet when you're thinking about ecological impact .who is achieving 4000, 5000 square foot homes for a family of two, a family of maybe two and one child? unless you count the pets where our average size is no more than 2.1 and i don't know what that point stands for but our family size has shrunk but then the size of homes has been supersized for no good reason other than showing the opulence of and luxury that is affordable. our problem is affordable housing.our problem is providing more affordable housing for the middle and lower income san franciscans and this is not theanswer .

i and my fellow activists are in support of this ordinance and we're thankful that supervisor mandelman has come up with that. i'm just having that the machinations from planning and staff , the sar limits are not going to be higher than what w have because it's counter to what ms. malone indicated . our experience because we do get those notices for 311 pre-application. the average unit size including the ones that are being built in units, multiunit are not 3000 square feet. i don't know supervisors have come up with this but i appreciate it if the study could be available to the public and particularly ... >> let's take thenext color please .>> my name is bill

holtzman, i'm president of corporate heights neighbors better known as chn. we represent 1000 households which are directly northwest of the castro. we've been around for 18 years and focused on monster homes. the special use district was signedinto law on july 21, 2017 following two years of interim controls . it was supported by two different age supervisors and oneunanimous approval from the board and the mayor . the second years of experience we are the ultimate petri dish when it comes to combating monster homes. we now received advance notice for any development that is greater than 3000 square feet and or if that involvement offers less than 45 percent rear yard coverage so this passage a number of c.u. have been triggered and we've utilized these critical tools and the vast majority of cases

the suv helped produce negotiated compromise where the neighborhood and the developer run away with not exactly what they want but close to what they want . in looking at the proposed ordinancefor you i suggest 2 enhancements . explicitly spelling out the five percent back yard coverage and require a variance if this is exceeded. thank you very much for your time. >> next speaker please. >> i live on liberty street in the dolores heights area and i thank you much supervisor for bringing this up. i've been living here for over 23 years and i've seen both the character of this neighborhood if all and change in these huge crazy size homes built upand i know my ceos and founders are

some of the most wealthy companies in the world . i am also in favor of this ordinance which would bring to attention any of these changes that are so out of line of what the city has been for over a couple of hundred years and i believe not only in increasing affordability if there such a thing anymore in san francisco for houses but also just to for san francisco to still be san francisco and having these gradual changes as outlined by people going forward thank you so much >> let's take the next color. if you'd like to thisitem we are on item number five . otherwise we will take the last color in the queue . >> caller: that afternoon. i want to highlight the need for this suv and link with the issue of the demo. 40 projects in noe valley alone have been flipped for a price

increase of 3.9 million in the past decade by misusing the section 317 them and they become negative mansions over 3000 square feet and even more throughout the proposed suv and some were originally 2 units. noe valley as an epicenter for demolition according to the planning staff. in 2015 reviewing a sample of five noe valley projects the staff concerned 40 percent should have been reviewed as demolition under the existing them. since december 2017 when the ret was rescinded the planning commission could have stopped alterations from becoming high-priced super large single-family homes by adjusting thedemolition calculations as they are empowered to do . as told residents in march 2009 would return within the year to adjust them. it never happened. please remember the points for

demolition planning: was to allow reasonable expansion preventing demolitions. as it said in section 317 findings the general plan recognizes the existing housing is the greatest residential units is a resource inneed of protection . i urge this committee to please put forward supervisor mandelman's legislation to the full board and most importantly i urge the committee to take board member 200451 and some helpfulinto this proposed ordinance . this was passed unanimously and we continue to callthe chair on may 4, 2020 . these call now and add it to the suv and thank you much and happy valentine's day. >> let's take the next color please. >> good afternoon chair melgar

and members of the transportation committee . i'm chair of the dolores heights improvement club in district 8. we strongly support this legislation. it sets reasonable limits for the size of family houses while allowing for more square footage ofthe project has more than one unit . my neighbor on liberty street during the past seven years at 12:00 neighborhood has had 50 significant home demolitionsfor renovations . 20 of these projects were more than 4000 square feet on our standard 2514 lot and five were in excess of 5000 square feet. these projects are big and out of character with the neighborhood. done because project sponsors with the pockets increase their profits by building the maximum square footage allowed and not families thathave saved enough

to report a modified home in san francisco . these large projects have significant impacts with larger excavations and foundations. their dump trucks, cementtrucks up and down our street constantly . on my street my eight year of constant construction that will continue for another 4 and 5 years based on entitled projects .that's how these projects come . and for what? a home gym? media room? a home office? [inaudible] how do these homes benefit our neighborhood and our city? association has brought to the planning commission on the most egregious projects.however these systemic practices shouldn't and can't be fought on a case-by-case basis. they call for a change in policy.

please supportthis legislation and vote to move it to the full board .>> that concludes the queue for this item. >> thank you so much madame clerk. with that public comment is now closed. supervisor mandelman i would like to make a motion that we amend legislation according to the record provided to us. thank you. madame clerk, let's take a roll call on that. >> on that motion, supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] >> those are non-substantive amendments, correct? we can goahead and vote on the amended legislation and send it

out with a recommendation i'll just make that motion, thank you. madame clerk . >> on the motion to recommend as amended, supervisor peskin. >>. [roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> chair: that motion passes unanimously. iq supervisor mandelman. >> thank youcolleagues . >> i'm so surprised that we're doingsuch a great time we are going to getout in time for valentine's day , i think . please call the next item . >> item number six is an ordinance amending the administrative code evicting residential tenants for nonpayment of rent on or after april 1, 2022 and due to the pandemic and will prohibit landlords from imposing penalties or similar charges on

such tenants. members would like to make public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. again, that number today is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.e.is 2497 689 2798. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so press á3 lineup to speakat the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand . >> thank you so much madame clerk. supervisor preston has always thank you so muchfor your leadership on all these issues . the floor is yours. >> thank you chair melgar and apologies committee members . supervisors and everyone that we have stacked with so many different pieces of legislation but it's the state's fault, not ours. the city as i said before acted very swiftly to stop his

actions at the outset of the pandemic. it was first done by the mayor for executive order back in march 2020 followed by the board of supervisors passed an ordinance in june 2020 which made rent payers caused by covid-19 not a victim. the time from the governor's march 2020 executive order and its subsequent extensions which lasted until september 2020. in august 2020, california passed 80 88 which created more limited statewide election protections and unfortunately the state law also targeted san francisco and preempted it cities like ours from passing additional more protective measures for related nonpayment arrests. in effect the state intervened

to stop san francisco in particular and other cities from deterring determining the best way to keep people in their homes during a pandemic. the statewide protections were extended first by sc 91 and later by 8832. the election protections made a 32 expired in october 2021 but the provisions that prevent the infection for pending application for rental assistance as well as the provisions that preempt local governments from enacting their own nonpayment election protection all of them remain in effect until april 1 2022. so colleagues, the statewide protections circumventing but obviously the hardships are not in the emergency remains. san francisco has more than 11,000 pending applications for

rent relief with more than $182 million in requested funds that have not been paid according to the california rent relief program dashboard. the ordinance before the committee today seeks to reinstate permanent infection protection for tenants unable to pay rent during the state of emergency like the previous ordinance that covered the rent again before thestate intervened , the april to september 2020 rent which incidentally i should mention is a landlord lobby challenge in the court and which was upheld by law in san francisco's court against the legal challenge. this proposal permanently takes nonpayment conviction across the table where the or the

inability to payarose out of a substantial decrease in household income or substantial out-of-pocket expenses . half by the pandemic or by any local state or federal governmentresponse and is documented . again, those provisions are verbatim as what we passed in 2020. the rentals covered by this ordinance importantly our starting on april 1, 2022 so this ordinance deals with the rent that will begin to become due for the rental period starting april. and under the ordinance and will run through the end of the mayor's proclamation of emergency related to the covid-19 pandemic so as long as conditions warrant a state of emergency peoplefacing hardship should not lose their homes . that's the fundamental premise of this law. in addition to the legislation and again just like our 20/20

legislation identically prohibits late fees, penalties, interest or other charges to tenants related to the delays and also modifies the habitual late payment of rent and election rules to make clear that delay rent and delay itself can be used as grounds for eviction. i want to be clear the legislation does not cancel the rent that accrues during the state of emergency. instead the obligation really becomes a kin to consumer debt if they're not promptly pay and remain enforceable but the legislation does establish and will establish that the rent debt is not grounds for eviction. notnow, and not ever .i want to thank the coalition for working with myoffice . my chief of staff kyle and my early cosponsors supervisor chan, peskin, ronen and walton

and lastlymadame chair , we know there are conversations happening on the state federal regarding potential steps to prevent elections. we don't know where those conversationswill land and we can't wait until they land . they always aim to land right. we're also looking forward to more clarity on the type of emergency so knowing the grounds i would like to duplicate the file and leave open the option to revisit this ordinance and consider amendments as needed without restarting the clock in the future so with that i'd like to ask the city to send the original file to the board with a positive recommendation as report and thank you madame chair for recalibrating this

specifically for your willingness to submit the report and on the duplicative file i like to continue that to the call of the chair. >> thank you so much supervisor preston and three please add me as a cosponsor of theoriginal file . do we have any questions or comments for improviser preston?madame clerk,let's go to public comment on this item . >> dbh i'm checking to see how many colors we have and you. if you've not done so already press á3 to be added. the system will indicate you have raised your hand so for thosealready on hold we continue to wait and the system will indicate you have been commuted and then you may begin your comments. the system has 10 listeners with five in the queue. let's take the first color

please . >> hello officials, i urge the board not to continue raising the moratorium. it is a health and safety risk especially for allsmall business owners . we are people . we have bills to pay. but we have done our part in the moratorium. as for myself i have a school nurse and iworked two full-time jobs seven days a week .i work weekdays and nights, 12 hour shifts. at home and lately just this payment upstairs cost a lot that made me leslie and i'm communal compromise. i have covid-19 because of the delivery guys that shared on my front porch. i don't go out and i work from home. i don't congregate in large crowds. this nonpayment did not submit anyapplication . only to illegally settle his

children who apply. and housing is the key. to be fair, the resolution officials and supervisor preston, please tell us what is just cause for eviction? i know money is a cause. what can we do? i've been in so much pain and my house is very much in jeopardy. this causes me pain and we've been working so hard just to paybills. for this property . you have bigger problems. i know it is outof town homeless people .

and they go to county assistance programs. to get money. >>. [please stand by]

>> we need our money. we are also -- let me. [indiscernable] >> is that caller still unmuted? let's move back. that caller had a minute and 47 seconds left. next caller. then we will move back. we lost that one. >> good afternoon. this is a tenant unit member. it is unfortunate the state program has lagged not paid out what the dew to the tenants to

give to the landlords. that is a big problem. that affects the land lords and the tenants. tenants need a roof over their head. we are still in the covid-19 pandemic. the eviction protections will expire on march 31st, it makes perfect sense that we continue the protections for tenants from april to the end of the pandemic is declared. please forward this with a positive recommendation to the full board. thank you. >> next caller. if you would like to speak, press star 3. otherwise we will take the last three in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is theresa flanders, north

beach tenants committee. i am calling in support. we need this. i have talked with so many tenants whose landlords had not been willing to submit ledgers or information. much has been delayed for so much. the anxiety during this particular period of time has only grown, especially for tenants and those landlords waiting also to get that money. in support of both landlords and tenants with rent relief, we need these tenant protections in place. it is reality, the way things are right now. thank you, supervisor preston, for helping all of us. thank you so much. >> next caller in the queue.

good afternoon, i am an organizer in san francisco. i am here to support the reinstatement of eviction moratorium. we are in the pandemic. we are out of jobs. a huge amount of debt. displacement in san francisco. we need this protection in place. i am urging you to support it to protect the community of san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. this is the last caller in the queue. if you would like to speak, press star 3. >> hi, i work at the coalition, specifically on the covid-19 debt relief program. there are over 10,000 applications for san francisco

county not processed, a lot of which were submitted last year. i empathies with the landlords. it is on the state to make this rent relief program more accessible until those thousands of applications can be processed. we need to extend protection for the thousands of tenants. thank you. >> last caller. >> i am amanda. i am a small landlord and also an attorney. my experience has been that my tenants have been abusing this. they did not have a covid related loss of their jobs. they are still using this. they have completely stopped

communicating with us at all because they are hiding behind this legislation. we are not able to get relief which they would be denied. it is troublesome how the legislation has been stacked up against property holders. i would argue it constitutes constitutional taking. no due process for people like us effectively denied use of or control over our property. that is discouraging as a citizen of san francisco because it feels like we are completely being blindsighted. >> thank you so much for your comments. the caller that dropped up did hang up from the call. that completes the queue.

>> thank you. supervisor preston did you want to address anything in public comment? >> i would add as general comment. i do think the approach on payment eviction for nonpayment situations there has been considerable balance and really unprecedented response by the federal, state and local governments. they generated a massive amount of funds in an effort to make sure that landlords are not losing rental income. regardless of the wisdom of that. it is its own policy discussion. the reality is if everyone is frustrated landlords and ten benants to -- tenants we have the money from the federal

government and people are significantly delayed. i don't think that serves anyone's interest. it is unfortunate. this board has taken action. set aside considerable funds for rent relief as well in the event those claims are denied at the state level. the additional tens of millions of dollars are available here. i think that that balance is struck. people should not lose homes if covid made them unable to pay their rent. it is not a covid situation that this doesn't apply to. if there is hardship due to the pandemic or to the government response and closures of businesses and that kind of thing and folks would be protected. the debt remains as well as access to the rent relief.

i am proud of our efforts of a city to come together to say whatever the resolution of the underlying debts here that they shouldn't be grounds to for eviction. most of the frustration has much more to do with the inexcusably slow system at the state level. as much as the speed submitting forms for one program then asked for the next one and submit this form. we know these programs work best when they are seamless to root out fraud without hurdles for people. i believe in most situations that i have heard about where folks are having a hard time because of this it is because of

that bureaucracy, not working as well as it should. i would say we should all be directing that frustration by the state programs not turning around the applications more quickly. working as we are in conversations with the mayor's office of community development. do we need to take it back in this program was originally local. we thought the state would be better positioned to process claims. the move back up to the state and i think we should take a hard look if we need to pull this back from the city if the state can't turn the checks around for everyone's benefit. i stated a motion earlier. i appreciate you cosponsoring.

as i said before send be the original file to the full board with positive recommendation and continue the duplicative file to the call of the chair. >> thank you. madam clerk. public comment is closed. we will take roll on the two motions supervisor peskin just stated. >> first motion to recommend original file as committee report. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> speaker preston. >> aye. >> speaker melgar. >> aye. i have three ayes. on the second motion which was duplicated. the motion to continue the duplicate to the call of chair supervisor preston. >> aye. >> peskin. or re. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar.

>> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. that motion passes. congratulations, supervisor preston. do we have any other items on the agenda? >> no further business for today. >> great. we are adjourned. happy valentine's day everyone. >> happy valentine's day.

>> on behalf of the san francisco office and historical society, our partners and sponsors, welcome to the 2022 black history month kickoff program. i am aloe williams, president of the society's board of directors. the society was founded in 1955. in 1958, it merged with a local chapter of the association for the study of african-american life and history, which is better known as the national group which started the celebration of what is now black history month. that is the society became the official sponsor of black history month in san francisco. from the beginning, the society has centred its black history month activities around the theme established by the group.

the national 2022 black history month theme is black health and wellness. today's program and other society programs throughout the month of february will address this theme. we hope you will enjoy and be informed by today's program. as is our custom and tradition, today's program will begin with an invocation. the reverend amos brown, senior pastor of third baptist church in san francisco will provide today gigi invocation. the invocation will be followed by the singing of the negro national anthem by the soul singer. [♪♪♪] >> it is significant that we have chosen this year as the

national theme that we are focusing on the health and wellness of this african-american community. need i remind you, history calls on us. and because of that, mid atlantic slave trade, our ancestors were robbed of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and the quality of life was compromised because of the way we were treated. we were not even considered human. in fact,, the constitution of this nation defined us, at one point as being three fifths human. consequently, when this elected

policy treated us as not being human, we got less than quality food, quality healthcare, quality mental health, and a quality environment to live in. friends, that is un-american. that is inhumane and that is the height of egocentrism and selfishness. i hope that out of our celebrating this african-american history month, we shall collectively, in our city, work to correct the

age-old historical disparities. it has experienced -- it has caused us to experience hypertension and strokes, doubled and almost tripled in some communities than that of the majority of cultures. women disproportionately dying of uterine cancer, breast cancer, and we have been challenged with the age-old's -- age old sickness of sickle-cell anemia. in addition to that, and too many of our communities, there have been food deaths. we are not eating a healthy diet. consequently, we need to be

creative and think outside of the box and make sure that we have, in our communities, stores that will sell as quality food and never as it has been document lee reported, leftovers. we don't need any more hush money thrown at us. during the days of enslavement when those who worked in the big house and finished cooking for those who enslaved us, whatever grease and cornmeal that was left, many times they had to take the cornmeal and grease and make hushpuppies to sustain themselves. and then there were times when the dogs would be out barking

and they were hungry too. some of them would throw out hushpuppies and say, hush, puppy or hush, dog. that says to us, symbolically, and in some instances actually, we should stop accepting leftovers, prongs, and that which others would not want to eat into our bodies. finally, let me say, help also is maintained by people having a sense of belonging. a sense of belonging. psychiatrists and psychologists have documented the fact that whenever a group of people feel that they are invisible people,

that they are not connected, that they are not respected and not regarded, they develop mental challenges. and you all have heard, i'm sure, about the posttraumatic stress syndrome. we have too much stress in our communities. from noise, guns, and violence. and many times that violence comes from the tone. how we talk to each other, how we treat each other. so what is the answer? we need to work towards creating what dr. martin luther king jr. by teaching this, what was that? the establishment of a beloved community in which we first

learn how to reasonably and rationally respect our self-worth. and secondly, the obligation of society to make up for times in which we were wrong and we received payback for the times that our watering holes, our community gatherings were destroyed by so-called urban renewal. it was not urban renewal -- urban renewal, but it was black removal. i will not go into detail dealing with the specificities, but in the city and county of san francisco, we have to do more than just calm -- call on god or pray to god. we must work collectively in a responsible, realistic, righteous way to restore every

historical center were african-americans were embattled. commerce, cultural celebration, and having a place to say that this is ours as sons and daughters. [♪♪♪] let us pray. [singing]

[singing] will [singing]

[singing] >> we will now have readings from the mayor of the city and county of san francisco. the honorable london breed and the president of the san francisco board of supervisors, supervisor walton. >> hi. i am mayor london breed. thank you for joining as as we kick off black history month in san francisco. this year's theme of black health and wellness is not just a response to covid. it is celebrating the black health care workers who have provided culturally competent care for our families for generations. from the black doctors and

nurses in today's hospital. to the doolittle and the healers in the field when our ancestors were in play. it is honoring the leader who fought to open clinics that served black people when hospitals would turn us away. it is recognizing the contributions of black scholars and practitioners like dr. carlton goodwin who was more than just a black physician in san francisco. he was a civil rights leader. he was a newspaper publisher. he advocated for black people and told our stories in our own voice. in celebrating black history month this year, we are renewing our commitment to ensure the next generation has equitable access to health and wellness resources, including cancer treatment, nutrition, and preventative care to mental health, therapy, and mindfulness. as a kid in the western addition, we were lucky to have the health center that served

our neighborhood with compassion and care. even today, while we are living in the era of vaccines and testing, there's still a lot of elders in our community who do not trust modern medicine, and with good reason. we have all heard the stories of how black people were used for cruel experiments under the guise of medicine. that is why it is so critical to create a holistic, inclusive, and black system that can break down the barriers for health care to everyone. programs like the abundant birth project. a project that provides guaranteed income to support black mothers during pregnancy and after giving birth. our dream keeper initiative has committed $60 million annually for the black community of san francisco, with $14.9 million to expanding and sustaining black health and wellness programs. i'm excited for a future where

everyone has equitable access to healthcare and wellness resources. thank you to al williams and the san francisco historical society for helping us host this event today. thank you for joining us to celebrate and honor the history, health, and lives of black people in this city. [♪♪♪] >> good afternoon. this is president of the san francisco board of supervisors, representing district 10. first of all, i want to start off by saying, happy black history month and wishing you many blessings this year for 2022. i also want to thank the san francisco african-american historical and cultural society for always remembering to bring us together as a people. to celebrate the contributions of black people, not only here in san francisco, but across the country.

each year we come together at city hall to kick off black history month. and as we know, every day is black history. it is very important to highlight those contributions and it is really important to kickoff black history month in that fashion, reflective of the city supporting black people. i also want to take the time to say that my fraternity brother, carter woodson started black history month, which originally started as negro history week. so that we could look at all the things that black people were doing here in the united states, contributing to society and making sure that everyone knew and understood black folks are intelligent, black folks are human beings, and black folks are people who need to be celebrated here in this country. as we come together for another

black history program, unfortunately we are not able to do this in person again this year. i want everyone to remember your history. remember that you are great. remember that you come from greatness, and remember that you are special. happy black history month, and again, i want to thank the san francisco african-american historical and cultural society for bringing us back together. [♪♪♪] >> thank you, mayor breed and supervisor walton. debate area company will now share with us their rendition of rooting for everybody black. >> i root for everybody black. everybody black is my hometown team. everybody black dropped the hardest album of the year, easy. everybody black is in this show,

so i am watching. everybody black is in this movie, so i am watching. everybody black's new book was beautiful. how you don't know about everybody black? everybody black is mad underrated. everybody black reminds me of someone i know. i love seeing everybody black to succeed. everybody black deserves the promotion more than anybody. i want everybody black to find somebody special. [ indiscernible ] >> i met everybody black once and they are super chill and down-to-earth. i believe in everybody black.

>> there's something about everybody black. [applause] [♪♪♪] >> we now have readings from the san francisco assessor reporter, joaquin torres. >> hello. i am the assessor recorder in the city and county of san francisco, wishing all of you a wonderful start to black history month. here in san francisco we are grateful for the contributions african-americans made with building and strengthening our culture and autonomy, and for advancing our pursuit before a more equitable society.

to our history making mayor, london breed, african-americans have elevated san francisco to world-renowned places. as we reflect on those contributions, let it fuel our ongoing and collective goal towards justice. as dr. king said, we are tied in a single garment of destiny. whatever offences directly affects all of us indirectly. this one,'s workers and his actions ground us in the purpose to advance black health and well-being as we work to close racial inequity and we fight for voting rights, pay equity, access to excellent healthcare and police reform, the work that we do offers tribute to those leaders who have come before us and for those who have laid the path using the diversity of practices to move our hearts and our minds towards a more humane and just world. some of them have left us this year.

sydney paktia -- desmond tutu, sidney potier. the society, who since 1955 has made sure we know where we come from and continues to lead the effort and timeline to celebrate african-americans in the bay area through one of the art -- oldest collections of art and recordings. for you, in appreciation of your work to keep these traditions of black history month alive and present and to preserve the rich history of african-american culture in san francisco, so we present to you a certificate of honor to thank you for your service. happy black history month. >> thank you, assessor torres. it is now my honor to briefly

introduce the keynote speaker. dr. jonathan butler. he is a faith leader and community activist. is a postdoctoral fellow at the university of california san francisco and holds a ph.d. degree in medical sociology and a master of divinity in religion and health. he is a social epidemiologist and minister with interest in the role of religion of childhood experiences and psychological stress on health outcomes. dr. butler is also the executive director of the san francisco african-american faith-based coalition, which seeks to address food security in san francisco and whose mission is to mobilize the city and its resources to eliminate health disparities and inequities in the african-american community. with that, i give you the keynote speaker, dr. jonathan butler who will share his thoughts and suggestions on the

subject of black health and wellness. >> my name is dr. jonathan butler. i am grateful to the san francisco african-american historical society for the invitation to speak for this year's black history month kickoff in san francisco. i served as executive director of the san francisco faith-based coalition. the coalition of 21 churches with a mission to eliminate health disparities and serve as an associate minister at the stork baptist church and a researcher in the department of family and community medicine at the university of california, san francisco. this year's black history theme is black health and wellness. when i think of black health and wellness i am reminded of the same principle that symbolizes it is taken from the past what is good and bring it into the present in order to make a positive progress through the benevolent use of knowledge. it is a word that translates to

retrieve and to go back, to get, to return, to seek and to take. and to understand who we are today in terms of our black health and wellness. we must go back and learn from the history of yesteryear. that's why i am delighted to greet you from the motherland. i am currently in ghana and i have been able to experience the culture here, taste the food, but to visit the coast slave castle, which has been an overwhelming experience. just imagine that castle. up to 2,000 men and female slaves who were shackled and crammed in the castle ventilated dungeons with nose to lie down and very little light without water or sanitation. the dungeon was littered with human waste and men were separated from the women. the captives regularly raped the

health -- helpless women. it also featured these confinement sales. -- cells. small, pitch black prisoners. once they step foot in the castle, they could spend up to three months in captivity. imagine living in these dungeons. defecating on themselves, standing near corpses. under these dreadful conditions until they were shifted into the new world. and then for them to cross the atlantic, from being thrown off the ship's, to come to places like the united states, africans were then hunted like animals, captures, sold, tortured and raped. they experienced the worst kind of physical, emotional, sake will -- psychological abuse. you can imagine how traumatizing

the slavery was. emancipation was followed by 100 more years of institutionalized racism through the enactment of black coals, convict lease -- convict leasing, lynching, these violations continue. and when combined with the crimes of the past as dr. joyce states, it results in unmeasured injuries. so to understand where we have come helps to delay the necessary foundation to ensure that everyone lives equality and sustained life for future generations to come. so first when we think about black health and wellness, we have to think now about not only

what we eat, how often we exercise, how often we get the sleep that we need, but we must understand the stressors and trauma and how they are measured comprehensively. we don't only experience racism and discrimination. there is financial stress and work stress and the work-family spillover type of stress. neighborhood stress. all of those stressors combined has damaging impacts on our physical and mental health. blacks especially are additionally harmed by this racism and discrimination. this -- these stressors proliferate over the life course and across generations and it widens the health gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged group members. to address these types of health inequities, we must focus on the

structural conditions that put people at risk for these stressors. we should focus on programs and policies and all levels that address the social conditions. let's look at this stress phenomenon. this trauma little deeper. what we mean by stress is being stressed out. feeling overwhelmed. out of control, exhausted. anxious. frustrated, angry. what happens to us when we feel these types of stressors. we don't get enough sleep. we eat too much of the wrong thing. we drink excessively. we smoke, we neglect to moderately exercise that can reduce these stressors. the succession -- this success of these stressors -- [ indiscernible ] and when the brain perceives and

experiences stressors, there's certain loads the where of tear move -- of our body throughout. this is why we experience many cases of diabetes and hypertension and obesity, but it is the racism and the discrimination that is correlated with this substandard employment housing, education,

income, access to health services that is associated with risks that include occupational hazards, exposure to toxic substances and allergens in the home, and low-quality schooling and lack of availability, at easy access to illicit drugs and alcohol, violent neighborhoods, environmental exposures, to these daily stressful events of living in poverty, racism, oppression, inequality, sexism, classism calls for us to come together and advocate what it is that we desire. we have to deal with damaged, fragmented, disrupted social relations, social networks and infrastructure of support.

you have to deal with the social efficacy. we have to deal with an elevation of the structural and destructive social norms promoting violence and unhealthy behaviors. what do we need to advocate for? we need sustainable community economic development. we need restorative justice. we need healing circles. we need to reclaim and improve our public spaces that have often been stolen from us. even in places like ghana. we need to advocate for shifting community norms and enhance the social connection and networks that we have had before. we need to rebuild intergenerational connections and relationships and organize and promote positive community activity and provide more of a voice and an element of power

for community folks around shifting and changing the environment as well as our structural factors. we need to create safe public spaces through improvements in our built environment by addressing parks and housing quality and transportation. reclaim and improve our public spaces. we have experienced this community level trauma. it is not just the aggregate of the individuals in the neighborhood who have experienced trauma from exposures to violence, but there are manifestations or symptoms of community trauma. community trauma is cumulative in synergistic impact and regular instance of interpersonal violence.

historical and intergenerational violence and continual exposures to structural violence. for us to become a people who have good quality of life, for us to address this issue of creating a healthy community, we must come together. we must demand what was stolen from us. i would like to end my conversation with a statement about our faith. a connection to faith has long been recognized as having a deeply profound impact on our social and emotional well-being. and throughout history, a connection to a higher power has been the cornerstone of resilience and empowerment that has sustained generations of individuals from the african diaspora. trauma and health disparities face historically and currently

african and african americans that contribute to the enduring legacy of faith and spirituality. to this day, it remains a powerful source of hopeful light for the community. when we help -- we think of health and wellness, we think of bringing us together. [♪♪♪] >> thank you for those inspiring, informative, and thought-provoking remarks on the 2020 black history month theme, black health and wellness. you are certainly giving us a great deal on things to think about and to think on for the days and months ahead. once again, we now go to some more performances. [♪♪♪] [singing]

[singing]

[singing]

[♪♪♪] >> thank you for another great performance. we hope you have enjoyed today's program. we look forward to seeing you at our genealogy resources program. and other programs on february 19th through 26th. last, but certainly not least, we would like to thank our sponsors and everyone who support made this program and all of our programs possible. we look forward to seeing you in person or virtually at these upcoming programs. until then, please stay safe. now, i leave you with a closing performance by the singer, rubble. [♪♪♪]

[♪♪♪] [singing]

[singing] [singing]

[singing]

[singing]

[singing] >> i am so happy. african-americans in the military from the revolutionary war to the present, even though they have not had the basic civil rights in america. they don't know their history. in the military the most sacrifice as anyone in this country to be willing to lay down your blood and fight. i believe that all

african-americans have served because they love this country and the hope that the citizens. . >> shop and dine the 49 challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i

started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients

and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who

>> the meeting of the transportation authority board. the vice chair is aaron peskin. the clerk is angela saul. madam clerk, please call the roll>> clerk: yes, chair. f one moment here. [roll call] melgar i think is delayed and will be here shortly.